Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20190207122255eucas1p1cdebed838c799eca46cce6a654a26187@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20190207122227.19873-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <20190208064957.zhyue42kpgaoslwm@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0iU1+YdAqHai+r_ubC1FarC2JWBuc98MG58n+y9=1WB=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190208103133.ysvaroyniuc3k4i5@vireshk-i7> <CAJZ5v0ghQ6bTV8atd6dtq8=ZBDUpDRVsCiAhwQVtfoMH-JhH9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190208113904.GB7913@e107155-lin> <CAJZ5v0gbh2LDq+6P_CQ+GWOxEdQrRUqQnx7v59hvs2_wwx9=kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190208120949.GB13043@e107155-lin>
In-Reply-To: <20190208120949.GB13043@e107155-lin>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:23:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jkpMyXrg9HwFizXLBEu0tggBmMbhZZZxzt_+a10cmuYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq/opp: rework regulator initialization
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Samsung SoC <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:09 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:03:10PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:39 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:42:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:31 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 08-02-19, 11:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > There are cpufreq driver suspend and resume callbacks, maybe use them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The driver could do the I2C transactions in its suspend/resume
> > > > > > callbacks and do nothing in online/offline if those are part of
> > > > > > system-wide suspend/resume.
> > > > >
> > > > > These are per-policy things that we need to do, not sure if driver
> > > > > suspend/resume is a good place for that. It is more for a case where
> > > > > CPU 0-3 are in one policy and 4-7 in another. Now 1-7 are
> > > > > hot-unplugged during system suspend and hotplugged later on. This is
> > > > > more like complete removal/addition of devices instead of
> > > > > suspend/resume.
> > > >
> > > > No, it isn't.  We don't remove devices on offline.  We migrate stuff
> > > > away from them and (opportunistically) power them down.
> > > >
> > > > If this is system suspend, the driver kind of knows that offline will
> > > > take place, so it can prepare for it.  Likewise, when online takes
> > > > place during system-wide resume, it generally is known that this is
> > > > system-wide resume (there is a flag to indicate that in CPU hotplug),
> > > > it can be "smart" and avoid accessing suspended devices.  Deferring
> > > > the frequency set up until the driver resume time should do the trick
> > > > I suppose.
> > >
> > > I agree. The reason we don't see this generally on boot is because all
> > > the CPUs are brought online before CPUfreq is initialised. While during
> > > system suspend, we call cpufreq_online which in turn calls ->init in
> > > the hotplug state machine.
> > >
> > > So as Rafael suggests we need to do some trick, but can it be done in
> > > the core itself ? I may be missing something, but how about the patch
> > > below:
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sudeep
> > >
> > > --
> > > diff --git i/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c w/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > index e35a886e00bc..7d8b0b99f91d 100644
> > > --- i/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > +++ w/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -1241,7 +1241,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
> > >                 policy->max = policy->user_policy.max;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > -       if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> > > +       if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy &&
> > > +           !cpufreq_suspended) {
> > >                 policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
> > >                 if (!policy->cur) {
> > >                         pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__);
> >
> > It looks like we need to skip the "initial freq check" block below.
> >
>
> Indeed, copy pasted an earlier version of diff. I found that I even
> used a goto label wrong which I fixed along with the additional check
> in "initial freq check" when I tried to compile :).
>
> > Also this doesn't really help the case when the driver ->init() messes
> > up with things.
> >
>
> Yes, in that case additional logic in the driver also needed. I am fine
> if we enforce driver to deal with this issue, but was thinking if we can
> make it generic. Also I was just trying to avoid adding _suspend/resume
> to driver just to avoid this issue.

I was wondering if cpufreq_offline()/online() could be invoked from
cpufreq_suspend()/resume() for the nonboot CPUs - if the driver needs
it (there could be a driver flag to indicate that).

If they are made exit immediately when cpufreq_suspended is set (and
the requisite driver flag is set too), that might work AFAICS.