+ Tobias Jakobi,
Hi Lin,
We need to discuss how to support the suspend-opp of devfreq device.
Now, there are two patch thread for suspend-opp of devfreq.
The Lin's approach modify the devfreq_suspend_device() to support suspend-opp.
The Tobias's approach[1] add new devfreq_suspend() and then call it on dpm_suspend()
when entering the suspend state.
[1] [RFC 0/4] PM / devfreq: draft for OPP suspend impl
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443323/
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443325/
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443329/
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443331/
I think we need to discuss it together.
Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
On 2016년 11월 24일 15:45, hl wrote:
> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>
> On 2016年11月24日 14:14, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, hl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>> []
>>>> We still need to sync the all status even i call target() in
>>>> devfreq_suspend/resume_device
>>>> directly, so still need update_devfreq() other setp except
>>>> devfreq->governor->get_target_freq(devfreq, &freq);
>>> And i think it better to be governor behaviors, for userspace they may not
>>> want to change
>>> the suspend frequency like other governor, the frequency should decide by
>>> the user, if they
>>> want this function, they should like other governor to rigister a
>>> devfreq_monitor_suspend().
>>
>>> What do you think about my rev6 patch?
>> If I understand the intention correctly, this is for the stability of
>> the device due to the behavior or bootloader/SoC-initializer, which
>> has nothing to do with governors.
>>
>> Even if users are using userspace, as long as they set the custom
>> frequencies lower than the default, they have the possibility of
>> being unstable as ondemand is going to have.
>>
>>
>> To reuse the update_devfreq() code, you may do something like:
>>
>> static int _update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq, bool is_suspending)
>> {
>> /* original contents of update_freq with if statement with is_suspending wrapping get_target_freq */
>> }
>> int update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>> {
>> return _update_freq(devfreq, false);
>> }
>>
>>
>> There should be other good non-invasive methods that are not governoe-specific as well.
>>
> Thanks for your suggestion, i will update the new version soon.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> MyungJoo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>
> --
> Lin Huang
>
Hi Chanwoo Choi,
I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
&dmc_opp_table {
opp06 {
opp-suspend;
};
};
so i think my way semm more simple.
On 2016年11月24日 15:10, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> + Tobias Jakobi,
>
> Hi Lin,
>
> We need to discuss how to support the suspend-opp of devfreq device.
> Now, there are two patch thread for suspend-opp of devfreq.
>
> The Lin's approach modify the devfreq_suspend_device() to support suspend-opp.
> The Tobias's approach[1] add new devfreq_suspend() and then call it on dpm_suspend()
> when entering the suspend state.
>
> [1] [RFC 0/4] PM / devfreq: draft for OPP suspend impl
> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443323/
> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443325/
> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443329/
> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443331/
>
> I think we need to discuss it together.
>
> Regards,
> Chanwoo Choi
>
> On 2016년 11월 24일 15:45, hl wrote:
>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>
>> On 2016年11月24日 14:14, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, hl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>> []
>>>>> We still need to sync the all status even i call target() in
>>>>> devfreq_suspend/resume_device
>>>>> directly, so still need update_devfreq() other setp except
>>>>> devfreq->governor->get_target_freq(devfreq, &freq);
>>>> And i think it better to be governor behaviors, for userspace they may not
>>>> want to change
>>>> the suspend frequency like other governor, the frequency should decide by
>>>> the user, if they
>>>> want this function, they should like other governor to rigister a
>>>> devfreq_monitor_suspend().
>>>> What do you think about my rev6 patch?
>>> If I understand the intention correctly, this is for the stability of
>>> the device due to the behavior or bootloader/SoC-initializer, which
>>> has nothing to do with governors.
>>>
>>> Even if users are using userspace, as long as they set the custom
>>> frequencies lower than the default, they have the possibility of
>>> being unstable as ondemand is going to have.
>>>
>>>
>>> To reuse the update_devfreq() code, you may do something like:
>>>
>>> static int _update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq, bool is_suspending)
>>> {
>>> /* original contents of update_freq with if statement with is_suspending wrapping get_target_freq */
>>> }
>>> int update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>> {
>>> return _update_freq(devfreq, false);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> There should be other good non-invasive methods that are not governoe-specific as well.
>>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion, i will update the new version soon.
>>> Cheers,
>>> MyungJoo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>> --
>> Lin Huang
>>
>
>
>
--
Lin Huang
Hi Lin,
On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>
> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>
> &dmc_opp_table {
> opp06 {
> opp-suspend;
> };
> };
Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
guarantee following conditions:
- Support the all of devfreq's governors.
- Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
>
> so i think my way semm more simple.
>
> On 2016年11月24日 15:10, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> + Tobias Jakobi,
>>
>> Hi Lin,
>>
>> We need to discuss how to support the suspend-opp of devfreq device.
>> Now, there are two patch thread for suspend-opp of devfreq.
>>
>> The Lin's approach modify the devfreq_suspend_device() to support suspend-opp.
>> The Tobias's approach[1] add new devfreq_suspend() and then call it on dpm_suspend()
>> when entering the suspend state.
>>
>> [1] [RFC 0/4] PM / devfreq: draft for OPP suspend impl
>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443323/
>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443325/
>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443329/
>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443331/
>>
>> I think we need to discuss it together.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chanwoo Choi
>>
>> On 2016년 11월 24일 15:45, hl wrote:
>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>
>>> On 2016年11月24日 14:14, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, hl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>> []
>>>>>> We still need to sync the all status even i call target() in
>>>>>> devfreq_suspend/resume_device
>>>>>> directly, so still need update_devfreq() other setp except
>>>>>> devfreq->governor->get_target_freq(devfreq, &freq);
>>>>> And i think it better to be governor behaviors, for userspace they may not
>>>>> want to change
>>>>> the suspend frequency like other governor, the frequency should decide by
>>>>> the user, if they
>>>>> want this function, they should like other governor to rigister a
>>>>> devfreq_monitor_suspend().
>>>>> What do you think about my rev6 patch?
>>>> If I understand the intention correctly, this is for the stability of
>>>> the device due to the behavior or bootloader/SoC-initializer, which
>>>> has nothing to do with governors.
>>>>
>>>> Even if users are using userspace, as long as they set the custom
>>>> frequencies lower than the default, they have the possibility of
>>>> being unstable as ondemand is going to have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To reuse the update_devfreq() code, you may do something like:
>>>>
>>>> static int _update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq, bool is_suspending)
>>>> {
>>>> /* original contents of update_freq with if statement with is_suspending wrapping get_target_freq */
>>>> }
>>>> int update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>>> {
>>>> return _update_freq(devfreq, false);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There should be other good non-invasive methods that are not governoe-specific as well.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for your suggestion, i will update the new version soon.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> MyungJoo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>>> --
>>> Lin Huang
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Hi Chanwoo Choi,
On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi Lin,
>
> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>
>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>
>> &dmc_opp_table {
>> opp06 {
>> opp-suspend;
>> };
>> };
> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>
> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
> guarantee following conditions:
> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in
devfreq_suspend_device(),
which will ingore governor.
> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it
shuold be handle in
specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right
frequency, then pass it to
specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the
devfreq->profile->target();
> Best Regards,
> Chanwoo Choi
>
>> so i think my way semm more simple.
>>
>> On 2016年11月24日 15:10, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>> + Tobias Jakobi,
>>>
>>> Hi Lin,
>>>
>>> We need to discuss how to support the suspend-opp of devfreq device.
>>> Now, there are two patch thread for suspend-opp of devfreq.
>>>
>>> The Lin's approach modify the devfreq_suspend_device() to support suspend-opp.
>>> The Tobias's approach[1] add new devfreq_suspend() and then call it on dpm_suspend()
>>> when entering the suspend state.
>>>
>>> [1] [RFC 0/4] PM / devfreq: draft for OPP suspend impl
>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443323/
>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443325/
>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443329/
>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443331/
>>>
>>> I think we need to discuss it together.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>>
>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 15:45, hl wrote:
>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016年11月24日 14:14, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, hl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>>> []
>>>>>>> We still need to sync the all status even i call target() in
>>>>>>> devfreq_suspend/resume_device
>>>>>>> directly, so still need update_devfreq() other setp except
>>>>>>> devfreq->governor->get_target_freq(devfreq, &freq);
>>>>>> And i think it better to be governor behaviors, for userspace they may not
>>>>>> want to change
>>>>>> the suspend frequency like other governor, the frequency should decide by
>>>>>> the user, if they
>>>>>> want this function, they should like other governor to rigister a
>>>>>> devfreq_monitor_suspend().
>>>>>> What do you think about my rev6 patch?
>>>>> If I understand the intention correctly, this is for the stability of
>>>>> the device due to the behavior or bootloader/SoC-initializer, which
>>>>> has nothing to do with governors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if users are using userspace, as long as they set the custom
>>>>> frequencies lower than the default, they have the possibility of
>>>>> being unstable as ondemand is going to have.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To reuse the update_devfreq() code, you may do something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> static int _update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq, bool is_suspending)
>>>>> {
>>>>> /* original contents of update_freq with if statement with is_suspending wrapping get_target_freq */
>>>>> }
>>>>> int update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return _update_freq(devfreq, false);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There should be other good non-invasive methods that are not governoe-specific as well.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your suggestion, i will update the new version soon.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> MyungJoo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>>>> --
>>>> Lin Huang
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Lin Huang
Hi Lin,
On 2016년 11월 24일 17:34, hl wrote:
> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>
>
> On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi Lin,
>>
>> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>
>>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>>
>>> &dmc_opp_table {
>>> opp06 {
>>> opp-suspend;
>>> };
>>> };
>> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>>
>> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
>> guarantee following conditions:
>> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
> As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in devfreq_suspend_device(),
> which will ingore governor.
Other approach already support the all of governors.
Before calling the mail, I discussed with Myungjoo Ham.
Myungjoo prefer to use the devfreq_suspend/devfreq_resume().
To Myungjoo,
Please add your opinion how to support the suspend frequency.
>> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
>> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
>> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
>> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
>> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
> Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it shuold be handle in
> specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right frequency, then pass it to
No, the frequency should be handled by governor or framework.
The each devfreq device has no any responsibility of next frequency/voltage.
The governor and core of devfreq can decide the next frequency/voltage.
You can refer to the cpufreq subsystem.
> specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the devfreq->profile->target();
The call of devfreq->profile->target() have to be handled by devfreq framework.
If user want to set the suspend frequency, user can add the 'suspend-opp' property.
It think this way is easy.
But,
If the each devfreq device want to decide the next frequency/voltage only for
suspend state. We can check the cpufreq subsystem.
If specific devfreq device want to handle the suspend frequency,
each devfreq will add the own suspend/resume functions as following:
struct devfreq_dev_profile {
int (*suspend)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
int (*resume)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
} a_profile;
a_profile = devfreq_generic_suspend;
The devfreq framework will provide the devfreq_generic_suspend() funticon.
int devfreq_generic_suspend(struce devfreq *dev) {
...
devfreq->profile->target(..., devfreq->suspend_freq);
...
}
or
a_profile = a_devfreq_suspend; // specific function of each devfreq device
The devfreq_suspend() will call 'devfreq->profile->suspend()' function
instead of devfreq->profile->target();
The devfreq call the 'devfreq->profile->suspend()'
to support the suspend frequency.
Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
>> Best Regards,
>> Chanwoo Choi
>>
>>> so i think my way semm more simple.
>>>
>>> On 2016年11月24日 15:10, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> + Tobias Jakobi,
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>
>>>> We need to discuss how to support the suspend-opp of devfreq device.
>>>> Now, there are two patch thread for suspend-opp of devfreq.
>>>>
>>>> The Lin's approach modify the devfreq_suspend_device() to support suspend-opp.
>>>> The Tobias's approach[1] add new devfreq_suspend() and then call it on dpm_suspend()
>>>> when entering the suspend state.
>>>>
>>>> [1] [RFC 0/4] PM / devfreq: draft for OPP suspend impl
>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443323/
>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443325/
>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443329/
>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443331/
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to discuss it together.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>>>
>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 15:45, hl wrote:
>>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016年11月24日 14:14, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, hl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>> We still need to sync the all status even i call target() in
>>>>>>>> devfreq_suspend/resume_device
>>>>>>>> directly, so still need update_devfreq() other setp except
>>>>>>>> devfreq->governor->get_target_freq(devfreq, &freq);
>>>>>>> And i think it better to be governor behaviors, for userspace they may not
>>>>>>> want to change
>>>>>>> the suspend frequency like other governor, the frequency should decide by
>>>>>>> the user, if they
>>>>>>> want this function, they should like other governor to rigister a
>>>>>>> devfreq_monitor_suspend().
>>>>>>> What do you think about my rev6 patch?
>>>>>> If I understand the intention correctly, this is for the stability of
>>>>>> the device due to the behavior or bootloader/SoC-initializer, which
>>>>>> has nothing to do with governors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if users are using userspace, as long as they set the custom
>>>>>> frequencies lower than the default, they have the possibility of
>>>>>> being unstable as ondemand is going to have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To reuse the update_devfreq() code, you may do something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static int _update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq, bool is_suspending)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> /* original contents of update_freq with if statement with is_suspending wrapping get_target_freq */
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> int update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> return _update_freq(devfreq, false);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There should be other good non-invasive methods that are not governoe-specific as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your suggestion, i will update the new version soon.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> MyungJoo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>>>>> --
>>>>> Lin Huang
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Hi Lin,
On 2016년 11월 24일 18:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi Lin,
>
> On 2016년 11월 24일 17:34, hl wrote:
>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>
>>
>> On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>> Hi Lin,
>>>
>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>
>>>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>>>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>>>
>>>> &dmc_opp_table {
>>>> opp06 {
>>>> opp-suspend;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>>>
>>> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
>>> guarantee following conditions:
>>> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
>> As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in devfreq_suspend_device(),
>> which will ingore governor.
>
> Other approach already support the all of governors.
> Before calling the mail, I discussed with Myungjoo Ham.
> Myungjoo prefer to use the devfreq_suspend/devfreq_resume().
It is not correct expression. We need to wait the reply from Myungjoo
to clarify this.
>
> To Myungjoo,
> Please add your opinion how to support the suspend frequency.
>
>>> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
>>> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
>>> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
>>> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
>>> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
>> Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it shuold be handle in
>> specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right frequency, then pass it to
>
> No, the frequency should be handled by governor or framework.
> The each devfreq device has no any responsibility of next frequency/voltage.
> The governor and core of devfreq can decide the next frequency/voltage.
> You can refer to the cpufreq subsystem.
>
>> specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the devfreq->profile->target();
>
> The call of devfreq->profile->target() have to be handled by devfreq framework.
> If user want to set the suspend frequency, user can add the 'suspend-opp' property.
> It think this way is easy.
>
> But,
> If the each devfreq device want to decide the next frequency/voltage only for
> suspend state. We can check the cpufreq subsystem.
>
> If specific devfreq device want to handle the suspend frequency,
> each devfreq will add the own suspend/resume functions as following:
>
> struct devfreq_dev_profile {
> int (*suspend)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
> int (*resume)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
> } a_profile;
>
> a_profile = devfreq_generic_suspend;
>
> The devfreq framework will provide the devfreq_generic_suspend() funticon.
> int devfreq_generic_suspend(struce devfreq *dev) {
> ...
> devfreq->profile->target(..., devfreq->suspend_freq);
> ...
> }
>
> or
>
> a_profile = a_devfreq_suspend; // specific function of each devfreq device
>
> The devfreq_suspend() will call 'devfreq->profile->suspend()' function
> instead of devfreq->profile->target();
>
> The devfreq call the 'devfreq->profile->suspend()'
> to support the suspend frequency.
>
> Regards,
> Chanwoo Choi
The key difference between two approaches:
Your approach:
- The each developer should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file.
- The each devfreq should call the devfreq_suspend_device()
to support the suspend frequency.
If each devfreq doesn't call the devfreq_suspend_device(), devfreq framework
can support the suspend frequency.
Other approach:
- The each developer only should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file
without the additional behavior.
In the cpufreq subsystem,
When support the suspend frequency of cpufreq, we just add 'opp-suspend' property
without the additional behavior.
Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>>
>>>> so i think my way semm more simple.
>>>>
>>>> On 2016年11月24日 15:10, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>> + Tobias Jakobi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to discuss how to support the suspend-opp of devfreq device.
>>>>> Now, there are two patch thread for suspend-opp of devfreq.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Lin's approach modify the devfreq_suspend_device() to support suspend-opp.
>>>>> The Tobias's approach[1] add new devfreq_suspend() and then call it on dpm_suspend()
>>>>> when entering the suspend state.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] [RFC 0/4] PM / devfreq: draft for OPP suspend impl
>>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443323/
>>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443325/
>>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443329/
>>>>> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9443331/
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we need to discuss it together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 15:45, hl wrote:
>>>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016年11月24日 14:14, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, hl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi MyungJoo Ham,
>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>> We still need to sync the all status even i call target() in
>>>>>>>>> devfreq_suspend/resume_device
>>>>>>>>> directly, so still need update_devfreq() other setp except
>>>>>>>>> devfreq->governor->get_target_freq(devfreq, &freq);
>>>>>>>> And i think it better to be governor behaviors, for userspace they may not
>>>>>>>> want to change
>>>>>>>> the suspend frequency like other governor, the frequency should decide by
>>>>>>>> the user, if they
>>>>>>>> want this function, they should like other governor to rigister a
>>>>>>>> devfreq_monitor_suspend().
>>>>>>>> What do you think about my rev6 patch?
>>>>>>> If I understand the intention correctly, this is for the stability of
>>>>>>> the device due to the behavior or bootloader/SoC-initializer, which
>>>>>>> has nothing to do with governors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if users are using userspace, as long as they set the custom
>>>>>>> frequencies lower than the default, they have the possibility of
>>>>>>> being unstable as ondemand is going to have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To reuse the update_devfreq() code, you may do something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> static int _update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq, bool is_suspending)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> /* original contents of update_freq with if statement with is_suspending wrapping get_target_freq */
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> int update_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> return _update_freq(devfreq, false);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There should be other good non-invasive methods that are not governoe-specific as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your suggestion, i will update the new version soon.
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> MyungJoo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Lin Huang
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Hi Lin,
2016-11-24 18:54 GMT+09:00 Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]>:
> Hi Lin,
>
> On 2016년 11월 24일 18:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi Lin,
>>
>> On 2016년 11월 24일 17:34, hl wrote:
>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>>>>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>>>>
>>>>> &dmc_opp_table {
>>>>> opp06 {
>>>>> opp-suspend;
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>>>>
>>>> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
>>>> guarantee following conditions:
>>>> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
>>> As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in devfreq_suspend_device(),
>>> which will ingore governor.
>>
>> Other approach already support the all of governors.
>> Before calling the mail, I discussed with Myungjoo Ham.
>> Myungjoo prefer to use the devfreq_suspend/devfreq_resume().
>
> It is not correct expression. We need to wait the reply from Myungjoo
> to clarify this.
>
>>
>> To Myungjoo,
>> Please add your opinion how to support the suspend frequency.
>
>>
>>>> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
>>>> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
>>>> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
>>>> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
>>>> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
>>> Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it shuold be handle in
>>> specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right frequency, then pass it to
>>
>> No, the frequency should be handled by governor or framework.
>> The each devfreq device has no any responsibility of next frequency/voltage.
>> The governor and core of devfreq can decide the next frequency/voltage.
>> You can refer to the cpufreq subsystem.
>>
>>> specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the devfreq->profile->target();
>>
>> The call of devfreq->profile->target() have to be handled by devfreq framework.
>> If user want to set the suspend frequency, user can add the 'suspend-opp' property.
>> It think this way is easy.
>>
>> But,
>> If the each devfreq device want to decide the next frequency/voltage only for
>> suspend state. We can check the cpufreq subsystem.
>>
>> If specific devfreq device want to handle the suspend frequency,
>> each devfreq will add the own suspend/resume functions as following:
>>
>> struct devfreq_dev_profile {
>> int (*suspend)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>> int (*resume)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>> } a_profile;
>>
>> a_profile = devfreq_generic_suspend;
>>
>> The devfreq framework will provide the devfreq_generic_suspend() funticon.
>> int devfreq_generic_suspend(struce devfreq *dev) {
>> ...
>> devfreq->profile->target(..., devfreq->suspend_freq);
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> or
>>
>> a_profile = a_devfreq_suspend; // specific function of each devfreq device
>>
>> The devfreq_suspend() will call 'devfreq->profile->suspend()' function
>> instead of devfreq->profile->target();
>>
>> The devfreq call the 'devfreq->profile->suspend()'
>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chanwoo Choi
>
> The key difference between two approaches:
>
> Your approach:
> - The each developer should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file.
> - The each devfreq should call the devfreq_suspend_device()
> to support the suspend frequency.
>
> If each devfreq doesn't call the devfreq_suspend_device(), devfreq framework
> can support the suspend frequency.
>
> Other approach:
> - The each developer only should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file
> without the additional behavior.
>
> In the cpufreq subsystem,
> When support the suspend frequency of cpufreq, we just add 'opp-suspend' property
> without the additional behavior.
I'm missing the use-case when using the devfreq_suspend_device()
before entering the suspend mode. We should consider the case when
devfreq device
calls the devfreq_suspend_device() directly. Because devfreq_suspend_device()
is exported function, each devfreq device call this function on the fly
without entering the suspend mode.
I correct my opinion. Your approach is necessary. I'm sorry to confuse you.
So, I make the following patch. This patch set the suspend frequency
in devfreq_suspend_device() after stoping the governor.
It consider the all governors of devfreq.
What do you think?
If you are ok, I'll send this patch with your author.
int devfreq_suspend_device(struct devfreq *devfreq)
{
+ int ret = 0;
+
if (!devfreq)
return -EINVAL;
if (!devfreq->governor)
return 0;
- return devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
+ ret = devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
DEVFREQ_GOV_SUSPEND, NULL);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent, "failed to suspend governor\n");
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ if (devfreq->suspend_freq) {
+ ret = devfreq->profile->target(devfreq->dev.parent,
+ &devfreq->suspend_freq, 0);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent,
+ "failed to set suspend-freq\n");
+ return ret;
+ }
+ dev_dbg(devfreq->dev.parent, "Setting suspend-freq: %lu\n",
+ devfreq->suspend_freq);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(devfreq_suspend_device);
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Hey guys,
Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi Lin,
>
> 2016-11-24 18:54 GMT+09:00 Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]>:
>> Hi Lin,
>>
>> On 2016년 11월 24일 18:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>> Hi Lin,
>>>
>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 17:34, hl wrote:
>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>>>>>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> &dmc_opp_table {
>>>>>> opp06 {
>>>>>> opp-suspend;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> };
>>>>> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
>>>>> guarantee following conditions:
>>>>> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
>>>> As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in devfreq_suspend_device(),
>>>> which will ingore governor.
>>>
>>> Other approach already support the all of governors.
>>> Before calling the mail, I discussed with Myungjoo Ham.
>>> Myungjoo prefer to use the devfreq_suspend/devfreq_resume().
>>
>> It is not correct expression. We need to wait the reply from Myungjoo
>> to clarify this.
>>
>>>
>>> To Myungjoo,
>>> Please add your opinion how to support the suspend frequency.
>>
>>>
>>>>> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
>>>>> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
>>>>> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
>>>>> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
>>>>> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
>>>> Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it shuold be handle in
>>>> specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right frequency, then pass it to
>>>
>>> No, the frequency should be handled by governor or framework.
>>> The each devfreq device has no any responsibility of next frequency/voltage.
>>> The governor and core of devfreq can decide the next frequency/voltage.
>>> You can refer to the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>
>>>> specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the devfreq->profile->target();
>>>
>>> The call of devfreq->profile->target() have to be handled by devfreq framework.
>>> If user want to set the suspend frequency, user can add the 'suspend-opp' property.
>>> It think this way is easy.
>>>
>>> But,
>>> If the each devfreq device want to decide the next frequency/voltage only for
>>> suspend state. We can check the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>
>>> If specific devfreq device want to handle the suspend frequency,
>>> each devfreq will add the own suspend/resume functions as following:
>>>
>>> struct devfreq_dev_profile {
>>> int (*suspend)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>> int (*resume)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>> } a_profile;
>>>
>>> a_profile = devfreq_generic_suspend;
>>>
>>> The devfreq framework will provide the devfreq_generic_suspend() funticon.
>>> int devfreq_generic_suspend(struce devfreq *dev) {
>>> ...
>>> devfreq->profile->target(..., devfreq->suspend_freq);
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> a_profile = a_devfreq_suspend; // specific function of each devfreq device
>>>
>>> The devfreq_suspend() will call 'devfreq->profile->suspend()' function
>>> instead of devfreq->profile->target();
>>>
>>> The devfreq call the 'devfreq->profile->suspend()'
>>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>
>> The key difference between two approaches:
>>
>> Your approach:
>> - The each developer should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file.
>> - The each devfreq should call the devfreq_suspend_device()
>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>
>> If each devfreq doesn't call the devfreq_suspend_device(), devfreq framework
>> can support the suspend frequency.
>>
>> Other approach:
>> - The each developer only should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file
>> without the additional behavior.
>>
>> In the cpufreq subsystem,
>> When support the suspend frequency of cpufreq, we just add 'opp-suspend' property
>> without the additional behavior.
>
> I'm missing the use-case when using the devfreq_suspend_device()
> before entering the suspend mode. We should consider the case when
> devfreq device
> calls the devfreq_suspend_device() directly. Because devfreq_suspend_device()
> is exported function, each devfreq device call this function on the fly
> without entering the suspend mode.
>
> I correct my opinion. Your approach is necessary. I'm sorry to confuse you.
> So, I make the following patch. This patch set the suspend frequency
> in devfreq_suspend_device() after stoping the governor.
> It consider the all governors of devfreq.
>
> What do you think?
> If you are ok, I'll send this patch with your author.
The problem I see here is that we need to keep track of the suspended
state when suspending the (entire) devfreq subsystem. When doing that,
we don't know if any device driver has previously called
devfreq_suspend_device() and might end up calling it twice.
Same thing on devfreq subsystem resume.
I've prepared a new RFC of my series (going to send it shortly), but I'm
not so happy with the current design. I think it would be much cleaner
to keep some suspend_refcount in struct devfreq so that I can call
devfreq_suspend_device() multiple times, while keeping a sane internal
state.
Something like devfreq_device_runtime_{put,get}() perhaps?
- Tobias
>
> int devfreq_suspend_device(struct devfreq *devfreq)
> {
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> if (!devfreq)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!devfreq->governor)
> return 0;
>
> - return devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
> + ret = devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
> DEVFREQ_GOV_SUSPEND, NULL);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent, "failed to suspend governor\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (devfreq->suspend_freq) {
> + ret = devfreq->profile->target(devfreq->dev.parent,
> + &devfreq->suspend_freq, 0);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent,
> + "failed to set suspend-freq\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> + dev_dbg(devfreq->dev.parent, "Setting suspend-freq: %lu\n",
> + devfreq->suspend_freq);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(devfreq_suspend_device);
>
2016-12-18 0:13 GMT+09:00 Tobias Jakobi <[email protected]>:
> Hey guys,
>
> Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi Lin,
>>
>> 2016-11-24 18:54 GMT+09:00 Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]>:
>>> Hi Lin,
>>>
>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 18:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 17:34, hl wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>>>>>>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> &dmc_opp_table {
>>>>>>> opp06 {
>>>>>>> opp-suspend;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
>>>>>> guarantee following conditions:
>>>>>> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
>>>>> As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in devfreq_suspend_device(),
>>>>> which will ingore governor.
>>>>
>>>> Other approach already support the all of governors.
>>>> Before calling the mail, I discussed with Myungjoo Ham.
>>>> Myungjoo prefer to use the devfreq_suspend/devfreq_resume().
>>>
>>> It is not correct expression. We need to wait the reply from Myungjoo
>>> to clarify this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To Myungjoo,
>>>> Please add your opinion how to support the suspend frequency.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
>>>>>> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
>>>>>> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
>>>>>> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
>>>>>> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
>>>>> Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it shuold be handle in
>>>>> specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right frequency, then pass it to
>>>>
>>>> No, the frequency should be handled by governor or framework.
>>>> The each devfreq device has no any responsibility of next frequency/voltage.
>>>> The governor and core of devfreq can decide the next frequency/voltage.
>>>> You can refer to the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>>
>>>>> specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the devfreq->profile->target();
>>>>
>>>> The call of devfreq->profile->target() have to be handled by devfreq framework.
>>>> If user want to set the suspend frequency, user can add the 'suspend-opp' property.
>>>> It think this way is easy.
>>>>
>>>> But,
>>>> If the each devfreq device want to decide the next frequency/voltage only for
>>>> suspend state. We can check the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>>
>>>> If specific devfreq device want to handle the suspend frequency,
>>>> each devfreq will add the own suspend/resume functions as following:
>>>>
>>>> struct devfreq_dev_profile {
>>>> int (*suspend)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>>> int (*resume)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>>> } a_profile;
>>>>
>>>> a_profile = devfreq_generic_suspend;
>>>>
>>>> The devfreq framework will provide the devfreq_generic_suspend() funticon.
>>>> int devfreq_generic_suspend(struce devfreq *dev) {
>>>> ...
>>>> devfreq->profile->target(..., devfreq->suspend_freq);
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> a_profile = a_devfreq_suspend; // specific function of each devfreq device
>>>>
>>>> The devfreq_suspend() will call 'devfreq->profile->suspend()' function
>>>> instead of devfreq->profile->target();
>>>>
>>>> The devfreq call the 'devfreq->profile->suspend()'
>>>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>>
>>> The key difference between two approaches:
>>>
>>> Your approach:
>>> - The each developer should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file.
>>> - The each devfreq should call the devfreq_suspend_device()
>>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>>
>>> If each devfreq doesn't call the devfreq_suspend_device(), devfreq framework
>>> can support the suspend frequency.
>>>
>>> Other approach:
>>> - The each developer only should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file
>>> without the additional behavior.
>>>
>>> In the cpufreq subsystem,
>>> When support the suspend frequency of cpufreq, we just add 'opp-suspend' property
>>> without the additional behavior.
>>
>> I'm missing the use-case when using the devfreq_suspend_device()
>> before entering the suspend mode. We should consider the case when
>> devfreq device
>> calls the devfreq_suspend_device() directly. Because devfreq_suspend_device()
>> is exported function, each devfreq device call this function on the fly
>> without entering the suspend mode.
>>
>> I correct my opinion. Your approach is necessary. I'm sorry to confuse you.
>> So, I make the following patch. This patch set the suspend frequency
>> in devfreq_suspend_device() after stoping the governor.
>> It consider the all governors of devfreq.
>>
>> What do you think?
>> If you are ok, I'll send this patch with your author.
> The problem I see here is that we need to keep track of the suspended
> state when suspending the (entire) devfreq subsystem. When doing that,
> we don't know if any device driver has previously called
> devfreq_suspend_device() and might end up calling it twice.
>
> Same thing on devfreq subsystem resume.
>
> I've prepared a new RFC of my series (going to send it shortly), but I'm
> not so happy with the current design. I think it would be much cleaner
> to keep some suspend_refcount in struct devfreq so that I can call
> devfreq_suspend_device() multiple times, while keeping a sane internal
> state.
I agree the devfreq need reference count for devfreq_suspend/resume_device.
This patch focus on when changing the suspend frequency.
>
> Something like devfreq_device_runtime_{put,get}() perhaps?
Why do devfreq need new additional functions?
I think the devfreq_suspend/resume_device are enough.
Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi
>
> - Tobias
>
>
>
>>
>> int devfreq_suspend_device(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>> {
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> if (!devfreq)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> if (!devfreq->governor)
>> return 0;
>>
>> - return devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
>> + ret = devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
>> DEVFREQ_GOV_SUSPEND, NULL);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent, "failed to suspend governor\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (devfreq->suspend_freq) {
>> + ret = devfreq->profile->target(devfreq->dev.parent,
>> + &devfreq->suspend_freq, 0);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent,
>> + "failed to set suspend-freq\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> + dev_dbg(devfreq->dev.parent, "Setting suspend-freq: %lu\n",
>> + devfreq->suspend_freq);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(devfreq_suspend_device);
>>
>
Hey Chanwoo,
Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> 2016-12-18 0:13 GMT+09:00 Tobias Jakobi <[email protected]>:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>> Hi Lin,
>>>
>>> 2016-11-24 18:54 GMT+09:00 Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]>:
>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 18:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 17:34, hl wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>>>>>>>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> &dmc_opp_table {
>>>>>>>> opp06 {
>>>>>>>> opp-suspend;
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
>>>>>>> guarantee following conditions:
>>>>>>> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
>>>>>> As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in devfreq_suspend_device(),
>>>>>> which will ingore governor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other approach already support the all of governors.
>>>>> Before calling the mail, I discussed with Myungjoo Ham.
>>>>> Myungjoo prefer to use the devfreq_suspend/devfreq_resume().
>>>>
>>>> It is not correct expression. We need to wait the reply from Myungjoo
>>>> to clarify this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To Myungjoo,
>>>>> Please add your opinion how to support the suspend frequency.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
>>>>>>> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
>>>>>>> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
>>>>>>> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
>>>>>>> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
>>>>>> Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it shuold be handle in
>>>>>> specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right frequency, then pass it to
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the frequency should be handled by governor or framework.
>>>>> The each devfreq device has no any responsibility of next frequency/voltage.
>>>>> The governor and core of devfreq can decide the next frequency/voltage.
>>>>> You can refer to the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the devfreq->profile->target();
>>>>>
>>>>> The call of devfreq->profile->target() have to be handled by devfreq framework.
>>>>> If user want to set the suspend frequency, user can add the 'suspend-opp' property.
>>>>> It think this way is easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> But,
>>>>> If the each devfreq device want to decide the next frequency/voltage only for
>>>>> suspend state. We can check the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>>>
>>>>> If specific devfreq device want to handle the suspend frequency,
>>>>> each devfreq will add the own suspend/resume functions as following:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct devfreq_dev_profile {
>>>>> int (*suspend)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>>>> int (*resume)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>>>> } a_profile;
>>>>>
>>>>> a_profile = devfreq_generic_suspend;
>>>>>
>>>>> The devfreq framework will provide the devfreq_generic_suspend() funticon.
>>>>> int devfreq_generic_suspend(struce devfreq *dev) {
>>>>> ...
>>>>> devfreq->profile->target(..., devfreq->suspend_freq);
>>>>> ...
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> a_profile = a_devfreq_suspend; // specific function of each devfreq device
>>>>>
>>>>> The devfreq_suspend() will call 'devfreq->profile->suspend()' function
>>>>> instead of devfreq->profile->target();
>>>>>
>>>>> The devfreq call the 'devfreq->profile->suspend()'
>>>>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>>>
>>>> The key difference between two approaches:
>>>>
>>>> Your approach:
>>>> - The each developer should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file.
>>>> - The each devfreq should call the devfreq_suspend_device()
>>>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>>>
>>>> If each devfreq doesn't call the devfreq_suspend_device(), devfreq framework
>>>> can support the suspend frequency.
>>>>
>>>> Other approach:
>>>> - The each developer only should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file
>>>> without the additional behavior.
>>>>
>>>> In the cpufreq subsystem,
>>>> When support the suspend frequency of cpufreq, we just add 'opp-suspend' property
>>>> without the additional behavior.
>>>
>>> I'm missing the use-case when using the devfreq_suspend_device()
>>> before entering the suspend mode. We should consider the case when
>>> devfreq device
>>> calls the devfreq_suspend_device() directly. Because devfreq_suspend_device()
>>> is exported function, each devfreq device call this function on the fly
>>> without entering the suspend mode.
>>>
>>> I correct my opinion. Your approach is necessary. I'm sorry to confuse you.
>>> So, I make the following patch. This patch set the suspend frequency
>>> in devfreq_suspend_device() after stoping the governor.
>>> It consider the all governors of devfreq.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>> If you are ok, I'll send this patch with your author.
>> The problem I see here is that we need to keep track of the suspended
>> state when suspending the (entire) devfreq subsystem. When doing that,
>> we don't know if any device driver has previously called
>> devfreq_suspend_device() and might end up calling it twice.
>>
>> Same thing on devfreq subsystem resume.
>>
>> I've prepared a new RFC of my series (going to send it shortly), but I'm
>> not so happy with the current design. I think it would be much cleaner
>> to keep some suspend_refcount in struct devfreq so that I can call
>> devfreq_suspend_device() multiple times, while keeping a sane internal
>> state.
>
> I agree the devfreq need reference count for devfreq_suspend/resume_device.
> This patch focus on when changing the suspend frequency.
>
>>
>> Something like devfreq_device_runtime_{put,get}() perhaps?
>
> Why do devfreq need new additional functions?
> I think the devfreq_suspend/resume_device are enough.
Just thinking out loud here. I would prefer a naming that implies that
some refcounting is going on. When I see a pair of function with
put/get, then I usually know what is going on.
Here I would have to look at the actual implementation to realize, at
the moment, that I have to be careful calling these functions twice.
-Tobias
>
> Thanks,
> Chanwoo Choi
>
>>
>> - Tobias
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> int devfreq_suspend_device(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>> {
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> if (!devfreq)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> if (!devfreq->governor)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> - return devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
>>> + ret = devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
>>> DEVFREQ_GOV_SUSPEND, NULL);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent, "failed to suspend governor\n");
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (devfreq->suspend_freq) {
>>> + ret = devfreq->profile->target(devfreq->dev.parent,
>>> + &devfreq->suspend_freq, 0);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + dev_err(devfreq->dev.parent,
>>> + "failed to set suspend-freq\n");
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> + dev_dbg(devfreq->dev.parent, "Setting suspend-freq: %lu\n",
>>> + devfreq->suspend_freq);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(devfreq_suspend_device);
>>>
>>
2016-12-18 3:19 GMT+09:00 Tobias Jakobi <[email protected]>:
> Hey Chanwoo,
>
>
> Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> 2016-12-18 0:13 GMT+09:00 Tobias Jakobi <[email protected]>:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>
>>>> 2016-11-24 18:54 GMT+09:00 Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]>:
>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 18:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 17:34, hl wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016年11月24日 16:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Lin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016년 11월 24일 16:34, hl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the dev_pm_opp_get_suspend_opp() have implement most of
>>>>>>>>> the funtion, all we need is just define the node in dts, like following:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> &dmc_opp_table {
>>>>>>>>> opp06 {
>>>>>>>>> opp-suspend;
>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> Two approaches use the 'opp-suspend' property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that the method to support suspend-opp have to
>>>>>>>> guarantee following conditions:
>>>>>>>> - Support the all of devfreq's governors.
>>>>>>> As MyungJoo Ham suggestion, i will set the suspend frequency in devfreq_suspend_device(),
>>>>>>> which will ingore governor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other approach already support the all of governors.
>>>>>> Before calling the mail, I discussed with Myungjoo Ham.
>>>>>> Myungjoo prefer to use the devfreq_suspend/devfreq_resume().
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not correct expression. We need to wait the reply from Myungjoo
>>>>> to clarify this.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To Myungjoo,
>>>>>> Please add your opinion how to support the suspend frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Devfreq framework have the responsibility to change the
>>>>>>>> frequency/voltage for suspend-opp. If we uses the
>>>>>>>> new devfreq_suspend(), each devfreq device don't care
>>>>>>>> how to support the suspend-opp. Just the developer of each
>>>>>>>> devfreq device need to add 'opp-suspend' propet to OPP entry in DT file.
>>>>>>> Why should support change the voltage in devfreq framework, i think it shuold be handle in
>>>>>>> specific driver, i think the devfreq only handle it can get the right frequency, then pass it to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the frequency should be handled by governor or framework.
>>>>>> The each devfreq device has no any responsibility of next frequency/voltage.
>>>>>> The governor and core of devfreq can decide the next frequency/voltage.
>>>>>> You can refer to the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> specific driver, i think the voltage should handle in the devfreq->profile->target();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The call of devfreq->profile->target() have to be handled by devfreq framework.
>>>>>> If user want to set the suspend frequency, user can add the 'suspend-opp' property.
>>>>>> It think this way is easy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But,
>>>>>> If the each devfreq device want to decide the next frequency/voltage only for
>>>>>> suspend state. We can check the cpufreq subsystem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If specific devfreq device want to handle the suspend frequency,
>>>>>> each devfreq will add the own suspend/resume functions as following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct devfreq_dev_profile {
>>>>>> int (*suspend)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>>>>> int (*resume)(struct devfreq *dev); // new function pointer
>>>>>> } a_profile;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a_profile = devfreq_generic_suspend;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The devfreq framework will provide the devfreq_generic_suspend() funticon.
>>>>>> int devfreq_generic_suspend(struce devfreq *dev) {
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> devfreq->profile->target(..., devfreq->suspend_freq);
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a_profile = a_devfreq_suspend; // specific function of each devfreq device
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The devfreq_suspend() will call 'devfreq->profile->suspend()' function
>>>>>> instead of devfreq->profile->target();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The devfreq call the 'devfreq->profile->suspend()'
>>>>>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Chanwoo Choi
>>>>>
>>>>> The key difference between two approaches:
>>>>>
>>>>> Your approach:
>>>>> - The each developer should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file.
>>>>> - The each devfreq should call the devfreq_suspend_device()
>>>>> to support the suspend frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> If each devfreq doesn't call the devfreq_suspend_device(), devfreq framework
>>>>> can support the suspend frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other approach:
>>>>> - The each developer only should add the 'opp-suspend' property to the dts file
>>>>> without the additional behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the cpufreq subsystem,
>>>>> When support the suspend frequency of cpufreq, we just add 'opp-suspend' property
>>>>> without the additional behavior.
>>>>
>>>> I'm missing the use-case when using the devfreq_suspend_device()
>>>> before entering the suspend mode. We should consider the case when
>>>> devfreq device
>>>> calls the devfreq_suspend_device() directly. Because devfreq_suspend_device()
>>>> is exported function, each devfreq device call this function on the fly
>>>> without entering the suspend mode.
>>>>
>>>> I correct my opinion. Your approach is necessary. I'm sorry to confuse you.
>>>> So, I make the following patch. This patch set the suspend frequency
>>>> in devfreq_suspend_device() after stoping the governor.
>>>> It consider the all governors of devfreq.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> If you are ok, I'll send this patch with your author.
>>> The problem I see here is that we need to keep track of the suspended
>>> state when suspending the (entire) devfreq subsystem. When doing that,
>>> we don't know if any device driver has previously called
>>> devfreq_suspend_device() and might end up calling it twice.
>>>
>>> Same thing on devfreq subsystem resume.
>>>
>>> I've prepared a new RFC of my series (going to send it shortly), but I'm
>>> not so happy with the current design. I think it would be much cleaner
>>> to keep some suspend_refcount in struct devfreq so that I can call
>>> devfreq_suspend_device() multiple times, while keeping a sane internal
>>> state.
>>
>> I agree the devfreq need reference count for devfreq_suspend/resume_device.
>> This patch focus on when changing the suspend frequency.
>>
>>>
>>> Something like devfreq_device_runtime_{put,get}() perhaps?
>>
>> Why do devfreq need new additional functions?
>> I think the devfreq_suspend/resume_device are enough.
> Just thinking out loud here. I would prefer a naming that implies that
> some refcounting is going on. When I see a pair of function with
> put/get, then I usually know what is going on.
The suspend/resume name are already used as pair function name.
I think that devfreq_suspend/resume_device() are appropriate.
Usually, '_runtime_put/get' naming means the 'runtime PM' callback function
which handle the all of resource (e.g., clock, regulator, register and so on).
>
> Here I would have to look at the actual implementation to realize, at
> the moment, that I have to be careful calling these functions twice.
Sure. I'm waiting your patch.
[snip]
Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi