lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 3/5] remoteproc: Add support for runtime PM
From
Date
On 6/10/20 11:39 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 10 Jun 02:40 PDT 2020, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le lun. 8 juin 2020 à 18:10, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> a écrit :
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> On 6/8/20 5:46 PM, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>>> Hi Suman,
>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/15/20 5:43 AM, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>>>>>>> Call pm_runtime_get_sync() before the firmware is loaded, and
>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_put() after the remote processor has been stopped.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even though the remoteproc device has no PM
>>>>>>>> callbacks, this allows the
>>>>>>>> parent device's PM callbacks to be properly called.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see this patch staged now for 5.8, and the latest
>>>>>>> -next branch has broken the pm-runtime autosuspend
>>>>>>> feature we have in the OMAP remoteproc driver. See
>>>>>>> commit 5f31b232c674 ("remoteproc/omap: Add support
>>>>>>> for runtime auto-suspend/resume").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What was the original purpose of this patch, because
>>>>>>> there can be differing backends across different
>>>>>>> SoCs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you try pm_suspend_ignore_children()? It looks like it
>>>>>> was made for your use-case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the delay in getting back. So, using
>>>>> pm_suspend_ignore_children() does fix my current issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I still fail to see the original purpose of this patch in
>>>>> the remoteproc core especially given that the core itself does
>>>>> not have any callbacks. If the sole intention was to call the
>>>>> parent pdev's callbacks, then I feel that state-machine is
>>>>> better managed within that particular platform driver itself,
>>>>> as the sequencing/device management can vary with different
>>>>> platform drivers.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that with Ingenic SoCs some clocks must be enabled in
>>>> order to load the firmware, and the core doesn't give you an option
>>>> to register a callback to be called before loading it.
>>>
>>> Yep, I have similar usage in one of my remoteproc drivers (see
>>> keystone_remoteproc.c), and I think this all stems from the need to
>>> use/support loading into a processor's internal memories. My driver does
>>> leverage the pm-clks backend plugged into pm_runtime, so you won't see
>>> explicit calls on the clocks.
>>>
>>> I guess the question is what exact PM features you are looking for with
>>> the Ingenic SoC. I do see you are using pm_runtime autosuspend, and your
>>> callbacks are managing the clocks, but reset is managed only in
>>> start/stop.
>>>
>>>> The first version of my patchset added .prepare/.unprepare
>>>> callbacks to the struct rproc_ops, but the feedback from the
>>>> maintainers was that I should do it via runtime PM. However, it was
>>>> not possible to keep it contained in the driver, since again the
>>>> core doesn't provide a "prepare" callback, so no place to call
>>>> pm_runtime_get_sync().
>>> FWIW, the .prepare/.unprepare callbacks is actually now part of the
>>> rproc core. Looks like multiple developers had a need for this, and this
>>> functionality went in at the same time as your driver :). Not sure if
>>> you looked up the prior patches, I leveraged the patch that Loic had
>>> submitted a long-time ago, and a revised version of it is now part of
>>> 5.8-rc1.
>>
>> WTF maintainers, you refuse my patchset for adding a .prepare/.unprepare,
>> ask me to do it via runtime PM, then merge another patchset that adds these
>> callback. At least be constant in your decisions.
>>
>
> Sorry, I missed this when applying the two patches, but you're of course
> right.
>
>> Anyway, now we have two methods added to linux-next for doing the exact same
>> thing. What should we do about it?
>>
>
> I like the pm_runtime approach and as it was Arnaud that asked you to
> change it, perhaps he and Loic can agree on updating the ST driver so we
> can drop the prepare/unprepare ops again?

These callbacks were added primarily in preparation for the TI K3 rproc
drivers, not just ST (the patch was resurrected from a very old patch
from Loic).

I still think prepare/unprepare is actually better suited to scale well
for the long term. This pm_runtime logic will now make the early-boot
scenarios complicated, as you would have to match its status, but all
actual operations are on the actual parent remoteproc platform device
and not the child remoteproc device. I think it serves to mess up the
state-machines of different platform drivers due to additional refcounts
acquired and maybe performing some operations out of sequence to what a
platform driver wants esp. if there is automated backend usage like
genpd, pm_clks etc. I am yet to review Mathieu's latest MCU sync series,
but the concept of different sync_ops already scales w.r.t the
prepare/unprepare.

As for my K3 drivers, the callbacks are doing more than just turning on
clocks, as the R5Fs in general as a complex power-on sequence. I do not
have remoteproc auto-suspend atm on the K3 drivers, but that typically
means shutting down and restoring the core and would involve all the
hardware-specific sequences, so the rpm callback implementations will be
more than just clocks.

I looked through the patch history on the Ingenic remoteproc driver, and
the only reason for either of runtime pm usage or prepare/unprepare ops
usage is to ensure that clocks do not stay enabled in the case the
processor is not loaded/started. The driver is using auto-boot, so when
it probes, in general we expect the remoteproc to be running. So, the
only failure case is if there is no firmware. Otherwise, Paul could have
just used clk_bulk API in probe and remove.

Anyway, I will provide some additional review comments on the pm_runtime
usage within the Ingenic rproc driver.

regards
Suman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-11 23:17    [W:0.335 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site