Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] soc: qcom: rpmhpd: Use corner in power_off | From | Dmitry Baryshkov <> | Date | Wed, 7 Jul 2021 19:58:42 +0300 |
| |
On 07/07/2021 18:48, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed 07 Jul 01:31 CDT 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/7/2021 10:19 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Mon 05 Jul 00:40 CDT 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >>>> On 7/5/2021 10:36 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 11:27 PM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/3/2021 6:24 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>>>> rpmhpd_aggregate_corner() takes a corner as parameter, but in >>>>>>> rpmhpd_power_off() the code requests the level of the first corner >>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In all (known) current cases the first corner has level 0, so this >>>>>>> change should be a nop, but in case that there's a power domain with a >>>>>>> non-zero lowest level this makes sure that rpmhpd_power_off() actually >>>>>>> requests the lowest level - which is the closest to "power off" we can >>>>>>> get. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While touching the code, also skip the unnecessary zero-initialization >>>>>>> of "ret". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 279b7e8a62cc ("soc: qcom: rpmhpd: Add RPMh power domain driver") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c | 5 ++--- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c >>>>>>> index 2daa17ba54a3..fa209b479ab3 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c >>>>>>> @@ -403,12 +403,11 @@ static int rpmhpd_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *domain) >>>>>>> static int rpmhpd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *domain) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> struct rpmhpd *pd = domain_to_rpmhpd(domain); >>>>>>> - int ret = 0; >>>>>>> + int ret; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mutex_lock(&rpmhpd_lock); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, pd->level[0]); >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> + ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, 0); >>>>>> >>>>>> This won't work for cases where pd->level[0] != 0, rpmh would just ignore this and keep the >>>>>> resource at whatever corner it was previously at. >>>>>> (unless command DB tells you a 0 is 'valid' for a resource, sending a 0 is a nop) >>>>>> The right thing to do is to send in whatever command DB tells you is the lowest level that's valid, >>>>>> which is pd->level[0]. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me. >>>>> >>>>> In rpmh_power_on() if cmd-db tells us that we have [0, 64, ...] and we >>>>> request 64 we rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, 1); but in power off, if >>>>> cmd-db would provide [64, ...] we would end up sending >>>>> rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, 64); >>>>> So in power_on we request the corner (i.e. index in the array provided >>>>> in cmd-db) and in power-off the same function takes the level? >>>> >>>> ah that's right, I did not read the commit log properly and got confused. >>> >>> Thanks for confirming my understanding. >>> >>>> Looks like this bug existed from the day this driver for merged :/, thanks >>>> for catching it. >>>> Does it make sense to also mark this fix for stable? >>>> >>> >>> I can certainly add a Cc: stable@ as I'm applying this. >> >> sure, sounds good >>> May I have your R-b? >> >> Reviewed-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> >> > > Thank you. > >>> >>> PS. Do you have any input on patch 2/2? That actually solves a practical >>> problem we're seeing. Would it perhaps aid in your need for the new >>> "assigned-opp-level" property? >> >> We would perhaps still need the 'assigned-opp-level' or equivalent since >> the default requirement of devices is not always the least level supported, >> in some cases it might be slightly higher corner which would then need to >> be set explicitly. >> > > Right, for situations where we use assign-clock-rates to drive up the > clock rate this mechanism might be needed in order to keep things > stable. > > But I presume as soon as you have some sort of dynamic nature to that > you'll be back to an opp-table and the means we already have. > >> I was hoping on getting some more testing done with that patch especially for >> any regression on the sc7180 and sc7280 devices, which I haven't got to yet. >> Are you getting these patches ready for merge for the -rc cycle or for the >> next merge window? >> > > That would be much appreciated, I've not done extensive testing myself, > mostly just booted a few different boards. > > But I would like to see us correct the MDSS_GDSC->MMCX setup in time for > v5.15, in particular since we have a few new users of the mmcx > power-domain-regulator arriving in this cycle.
I will rebase my patches on top of this patch series and submit soon.
-- With best wishes Dmitry
| |