| Message ID | 20240729080101.3859701-1-msp@baylibre.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: ti_sci: Partial-IO support | expand |
On 10:00-20240729, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > Add support for Partial-IO poweroff. In Partial-IO pins of a few modules > can generate system wakeups while DDR memory is not powered resulting in > a fresh boot of the system. The modules that can be wakeup sources are > defined by the devicetree. > > Only wakeup sources that are actually enabled by the user will be > considered as a an active wakeup source. If none of the wakeup sources > are enabled the system will do a normal poweroff. If at least one wakeup > source is enabled it will instead send a TI_SCI_MSG_PREPARE_SLEEP > message from the sys_off handler. Sending this message will result in an > immediate shutdown of the system. No execution is expected after this > point. The code will enter an infinite loop. > > The wakeup source device nodes are gathered during probe. But they are > only resolved to the actual devices in the sys_off handler, if they > exist. If they do not exist, they are ignored. > > A short documentation about Partial-IO can be found in section 6.2.4.5 > of the TRM at > https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiv7 > > Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@baylibre.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c | 160 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h | 34 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > index 160968301b1f..ba2e56da0215 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > @@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ struct ti_sci_desc { > * @node: list head > * @host_id: Host ID > * @users: Number of users of this instance > + * @nr_wakeup_sources: Number of device nodes in wakeup_source_nodes > + * @wakeup_source_nodes: Array of all device_nodes listed as wakeup sources in > + * the devicetree > */ > struct ti_sci_info { > struct device *dev; > @@ -116,6 +119,9 @@ struct ti_sci_info { > u8 host_id; > /* protected by ti_sci_list_mutex */ > int users; > + > + int nr_wakeup_sources; > + struct device_node **wakeup_source_nodes; > }; > > #define cl_to_ti_sci_info(c) container_of(c, struct ti_sci_info, cl) > @@ -392,10 +398,13 @@ static void ti_sci_put_one_xfer(struct ti_sci_xfers_info *minfo, > static inline int ti_sci_do_xfer(struct ti_sci_info *info, > struct ti_sci_xfer *xfer) > { > + struct ti_sci_msg_hdr *hdr = (struct ti_sci_msg_hdr *)xfer->tx_message.buf; > int ret; > int timeout; > struct device *dev = info->dev; > bool done_state = true; > + bool response_expected = !!(hdr->flags & (TI_SCI_FLAG_REQ_ACK_ON_PROCESSED | > + TI_SCI_FLAG_REQ_ACK_ON_RECEIVED)); I think a separate patch to introduce a no_response expected patch would make sense on which we build tisci_sys_off_handler in the next patch? > > ret = mbox_send_message(info->chan_tx, &xfer->tx_message); > if (ret < 0) > @@ -403,25 +412,27 @@ static inline int ti_sci_do_xfer(struct ti_sci_info *info, > > ret = 0; > > - if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING) { > - /* And we wait for the response. */ > - timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms); > - if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&xfer->done, timeout)) > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > - } else { > - /* > - * If we are !running, we cannot use wait_for_completion_timeout > - * during noirq phase, so we must manually poll the completion. > - */ > - ret = read_poll_timeout_atomic(try_wait_for_completion, done_state, > - done_state, 1, > - info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms * 1000, > - false, &xfer->done); > - } > + if (response_expected) { How about a goto? if (!response_expected) goto no_response; > + if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING) { > + /* And we wait for the response. */ > + timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms); > + if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&xfer->done, timeout)) > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > + } else { > + /* > + * If we are !running, we cannot use wait_for_completion_timeout > + * during noirq phase, so we must manually poll the completion. > + */ > + ret = read_poll_timeout_atomic(try_wait_for_completion, done_state, > + done_state, 1, > + info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms * 1000, > + false, &xfer->done); > + } > > - if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) > - dev_err(dev, "Mbox timedout in resp(caller: %pS)\n", > - (void *)_RET_IP_); > + if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) > + dev_err(dev, "Mbox timedout in resp(caller: %pS)\n", > + (void *)_RET_IP_); > + } > no_response: > /* > * NOTE: we might prefer not to need the mailbox ticker to manage the > @@ -3262,6 +3273,82 @@ static int tisci_reboot_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > return NOTIFY_BAD; > } > [...] > +static int tisci_sys_off_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > +{ > + struct ti_sci_info *info = data->cb_data; > + int i; > + int ret; > + bool enter_partial_io = false; > + > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > + struct platform_device *pdev = > + of_find_device_by_node(info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > + > + if (!pdev) > + continue; > + > + if (device_may_wakeup(&pdev->dev)) { > + dev_dbg(info->dev, "%pOFp identified as wakeup source\n", > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > + enter_partial_io = true; > + } > + } > + > + if (!enter_partial_io) > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > + > + ret = tisci_enter_partial_io(info); > + > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(info->dev, > + "Failed to enter Partial-IO %pe, trying to do an emergency restart\n", > + ERR_PTR(ret)); > + emergency_restart(); > + } > + > + while (1); Why not fall through OR go through emergency_restart (since there is no fall through for shutdown path) if it acks, but actually fails to enter LPM state after a dt described or a default timeout period? > + > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > +} > + > /* Description for K2G */ > static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { > .default_host_id = 2, > @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > goto out; > } > > + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { You should probably check on TISCI_MSG_QUERY_FW_CAPS[1] if Partial IO on low power mode is supported as well? if there is a mismatch, report so? > + info->nr_wakeup_sources = > + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > + NULL); > + info->wakeup_source_nodes = > + devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*info->wakeup_source_nodes), > + GFP_KERNEL); > + > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > + struct device_node *devnode = > + of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > + i); > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i] = devnode; Curious: Don't we need to maintain reference counting for the devnode if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC? [...] [1] https://software-dl.ti.com/tisci/esd/latest/2_tisci_msgs/general/core.html#tisci-msg-query-fw-caps
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 07:28:01AM GMT, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 10:00-20240729, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > > Add support for Partial-IO poweroff. In Partial-IO pins of a few modules > > can generate system wakeups while DDR memory is not powered resulting in > > a fresh boot of the system. The modules that can be wakeup sources are > > defined by the devicetree. > > > > Only wakeup sources that are actually enabled by the user will be > > considered as a an active wakeup source. If none of the wakeup sources > > are enabled the system will do a normal poweroff. If at least one wakeup > > source is enabled it will instead send a TI_SCI_MSG_PREPARE_SLEEP > > message from the sys_off handler. Sending this message will result in an > > immediate shutdown of the system. No execution is expected after this > > point. The code will enter an infinite loop. > > > > The wakeup source device nodes are gathered during probe. But they are > > only resolved to the actual devices in the sys_off handler, if they > > exist. If they do not exist, they are ignored. > > > > A short documentation about Partial-IO can be found in section 6.2.4.5 > > of the TRM at > > https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiv7 > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@baylibre.com> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c | 160 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h | 34 ++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > > index 160968301b1f..ba2e56da0215 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > > @@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ struct ti_sci_desc { > > * @node: list head > > * @host_id: Host ID > > * @users: Number of users of this instance > > + * @nr_wakeup_sources: Number of device nodes in wakeup_source_nodes > > + * @wakeup_source_nodes: Array of all device_nodes listed as wakeup sources in > > + * the devicetree > > */ > > struct ti_sci_info { > > struct device *dev; > > @@ -116,6 +119,9 @@ struct ti_sci_info { > > u8 host_id; > > /* protected by ti_sci_list_mutex */ > > int users; > > + > > + int nr_wakeup_sources; > > + struct device_node **wakeup_source_nodes; > > }; > > > > #define cl_to_ti_sci_info(c) container_of(c, struct ti_sci_info, cl) > > @@ -392,10 +398,13 @@ static void ti_sci_put_one_xfer(struct ti_sci_xfers_info *minfo, > > static inline int ti_sci_do_xfer(struct ti_sci_info *info, > > struct ti_sci_xfer *xfer) > > { > > + struct ti_sci_msg_hdr *hdr = (struct ti_sci_msg_hdr *)xfer->tx_message.buf; > > int ret; > > int timeout; > > struct device *dev = info->dev; > > bool done_state = true; > > + bool response_expected = !!(hdr->flags & (TI_SCI_FLAG_REQ_ACK_ON_PROCESSED | > > + TI_SCI_FLAG_REQ_ACK_ON_RECEIVED)); > > I think a separate patch to introduce a no_response expected patch would > make sense on which we build tisci_sys_off_handler in the next patch? > > > > > ret = mbox_send_message(info->chan_tx, &xfer->tx_message); > > if (ret < 0) > > @@ -403,25 +412,27 @@ static inline int ti_sci_do_xfer(struct ti_sci_info *info, > > > > ret = 0; > > > > - if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING) { > > - /* And we wait for the response. */ > > - timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms); > > - if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&xfer->done, timeout)) > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > - } else { > > - /* > > - * If we are !running, we cannot use wait_for_completion_timeout > > - * during noirq phase, so we must manually poll the completion. > > - */ > > - ret = read_poll_timeout_atomic(try_wait_for_completion, done_state, > > - done_state, 1, > > - info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms * 1000, > > - false, &xfer->done); > > - } > > + if (response_expected) { > > How about a goto? Yes, thanks, looks cleaner. > > if (!response_expected) > goto no_response; > > + if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING) { > > + /* And we wait for the response. */ > > + timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms); > > + if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&xfer->done, timeout)) > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > + } else { > > + /* > > + * If we are !running, we cannot use wait_for_completion_timeout > > + * during noirq phase, so we must manually poll the completion. > > + */ > > + ret = read_poll_timeout_atomic(try_wait_for_completion, done_state, > > + done_state, 1, > > + info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms * 1000, > > + false, &xfer->done); > > + } > > > > - if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) > > - dev_err(dev, "Mbox timedout in resp(caller: %pS)\n", > > - (void *)_RET_IP_); > > + if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) > > + dev_err(dev, "Mbox timedout in resp(caller: %pS)\n", > > + (void *)_RET_IP_); > > + } > > > no_response: > > > /* > > * NOTE: we might prefer not to need the mailbox ticker to manage the > > @@ -3262,6 +3273,82 @@ static int tisci_reboot_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > > return NOTIFY_BAD; > > } > > > [...] > > > +static int tisci_sys_off_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > > +{ > > + struct ti_sci_info *info = data->cb_data; > > + int i; > > + int ret; > > + bool enter_partial_io = false; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > > + struct platform_device *pdev = > > + of_find_device_by_node(info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > > + > > + if (!pdev) > > + continue; > > + > > + if (device_may_wakeup(&pdev->dev)) { > > + dev_dbg(info->dev, "%pOFp identified as wakeup source\n", > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > > + enter_partial_io = true; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + if (!enter_partial_io) > > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > > + > > + ret = tisci_enter_partial_io(info); > > + > > + if (ret) { > > + dev_err(info->dev, > > + "Failed to enter Partial-IO %pe, trying to do an emergency restart\n", > > + ERR_PTR(ret)); > > + emergency_restart(); > > + } > > + > > + while (1); > > Why not fall through OR go through emergency_restart (since there is > no fall through for shutdown path) if it acks, but actually fails to > enter LPM state after a dt described or a default timeout period? > > > + > > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > > +} > > + > > /* Description for K2G */ > > static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { > > .default_host_id = 2, > > @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > goto out; > > } > > > > + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { > > You should probably check on TISCI_MSG_QUERY_FW_CAPS[1] if > Partial IO on low power mode is supported as well? if there is a > mismatch, report so? I actually have another series in my queue that introduces this check. I just implemented this check for Partial-IO yesterday in the patch that introduces fw capabilities. If you like I can switch these series around. > > > + info->nr_wakeup_sources = > > + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > + NULL); > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes = > > + devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*info->wakeup_source_nodes), > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > + > > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > > + struct device_node *devnode = > > + of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > + i); > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i] = devnode; > > Curious: Don't we need to maintain reference counting for the devnode > if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC? In case you mean I missed of_node_put(), yes, I did, thank you. I added it in a ti_sci_remove(). Best Markus
On 15:01-20240730, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > > > + > > > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > > > +} > > > + > > > /* Description for K2G */ > > > static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { > > > .default_host_id = 2, > > > @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > goto out; > > > } > > > > > > + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { > > > > You should probably check on TISCI_MSG_QUERY_FW_CAPS[1] if > > Partial IO on low power mode is supported as well? if there is a > > mismatch, report so? > > I actually have another series in my queue that introduces this check. I > just implemented this check for Partial-IO yesterday in the patch that > introduces fw capabilities. If you like I can switch these series > around. Yes, please introduce it part of the series. > > > > > > + info->nr_wakeup_sources = > > > + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > > + NULL); > > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes = > > > + devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*info->wakeup_source_nodes), > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > > > + struct device_node *devnode = > > > + of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, > > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > > + i); > > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i] = devnode; > > > > Curious: Don't we need to maintain reference counting for the devnode > > if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC? > > In case you mean I missed of_node_put(), yes, I did, thank you. I added > it in a ti_sci_remove(). And unless I am mistaken, of_node_get as required as you are retaining the reference of the node till shutdown / remove is invoked.
On 7/29/24 3:00 AM, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > Add support for Partial-IO poweroff. In Partial-IO pins of a few modules > can generate system wakeups while DDR memory is not powered resulting in > a fresh boot of the system. The modules that can be wakeup sources are > defined by the devicetree. > > Only wakeup sources that are actually enabled by the user will be > considered as a an active wakeup source. If none of the wakeup sources > are enabled the system will do a normal poweroff. If at least one wakeup > source is enabled it will instead send a TI_SCI_MSG_PREPARE_SLEEP > message from the sys_off handler. Sending this message will result in an > immediate shutdown of the system. No execution is expected after this > point. The code will enter an infinite loop. > > The wakeup source device nodes are gathered during probe. But they are > only resolved to the actual devices in the sys_off handler, if they > exist. If they do not exist, they are ignored. > > A short documentation about Partial-IO can be found in section 6.2.4.5 > of the TRM at > https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiv7 > > Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@baylibre.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c | 160 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h | 34 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > index 160968301b1f..ba2e56da0215 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c > @@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ struct ti_sci_desc { > * @node: list head > * @host_id: Host ID > * @users: Number of users of this instance > + * @nr_wakeup_sources: Number of device nodes in wakeup_source_nodes > + * @wakeup_source_nodes: Array of all device_nodes listed as wakeup sources in > + * the devicetree > */ > struct ti_sci_info { > struct device *dev; > @@ -116,6 +119,9 @@ struct ti_sci_info { > u8 host_id; > /* protected by ti_sci_list_mutex */ > int users; > + > + int nr_wakeup_sources; > + struct device_node **wakeup_source_nodes; > }; > > #define cl_to_ti_sci_info(c) container_of(c, struct ti_sci_info, cl) > @@ -392,10 +398,13 @@ static void ti_sci_put_one_xfer(struct ti_sci_xfers_info *minfo, > static inline int ti_sci_do_xfer(struct ti_sci_info *info, > struct ti_sci_xfer *xfer) > { > + struct ti_sci_msg_hdr *hdr = (struct ti_sci_msg_hdr *)xfer->tx_message.buf; > int ret; > int timeout; > struct device *dev = info->dev; > bool done_state = true; > + bool response_expected = !!(hdr->flags & (TI_SCI_FLAG_REQ_ACK_ON_PROCESSED | > + TI_SCI_FLAG_REQ_ACK_ON_RECEIVED)); > > ret = mbox_send_message(info->chan_tx, &xfer->tx_message); > if (ret < 0) > @@ -403,25 +412,27 @@ static inline int ti_sci_do_xfer(struct ti_sci_info *info, > > ret = 0; > > - if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING) { > - /* And we wait for the response. */ > - timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms); > - if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&xfer->done, timeout)) > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > - } else { > - /* > - * If we are !running, we cannot use wait_for_completion_timeout > - * during noirq phase, so we must manually poll the completion. > - */ > - ret = read_poll_timeout_atomic(try_wait_for_completion, done_state, > - done_state, 1, > - info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms * 1000, > - false, &xfer->done); > - } > + if (response_expected) { If a response is not expected why not simply return above and not add even more indention here? Also, in that case, is the call to mbox_client_txdone() needed? > + if (system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING) { > + /* And we wait for the response. */ > + timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms); > + if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&xfer->done, timeout)) > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > + } else { > + /* > + * If we are !running, we cannot use wait_for_completion_timeout > + * during noirq phase, so we must manually poll the completion. > + */ > + ret = read_poll_timeout_atomic(try_wait_for_completion, done_state, > + done_state, 1, > + info->desc->max_rx_timeout_ms * 1000, > + false, &xfer->done); > + } > > - if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) > - dev_err(dev, "Mbox timedout in resp(caller: %pS)\n", > - (void *)_RET_IP_); > + if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) > + dev_err(dev, "Mbox timedout in resp(caller: %pS)\n", > + (void *)_RET_IP_); > + } > > /* > * NOTE: we might prefer not to need the mailbox ticker to manage the > @@ -3262,6 +3273,82 @@ static int tisci_reboot_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > return NOTIFY_BAD; > } > > +/* > + * Enter Partial-IO, which disables everything including DDR with only a small > + * logic being active for wakeup. > + */ > +static int tisci_enter_partial_io(struct ti_sci_info *info) > +{ > + struct ti_sci_msg_req_prepare_sleep *req; > + struct ti_sci_xfer *xfer; > + struct device *dev = info->dev; > + int ret = 0; > + > + xfer = ti_sci_get_one_xfer(info, TI_SCI_MSG_PREPARE_SLEEP, > + TI_SCI_FLAG_REQ_GENERIC_NORESPONSE, > + sizeof(*req), sizeof(struct ti_sci_msg_hdr)); > + if (IS_ERR(xfer)) { > + ret = PTR_ERR(xfer); > + dev_err(dev, "Message alloc failed(%d)\n", ret); > + return ret; > + } > + > + req = (struct ti_sci_msg_req_prepare_sleep *)xfer->xfer_buf; > + req->mode = TISCI_MSG_VALUE_SLEEP_MODE_PARTIAL_IO; > + req->ctx_lo = 0; > + req->ctx_hi = 0; > + req->debug_flags = 0; > + > + ret = ti_sci_do_xfer(info, xfer); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "Mbox send fail %d\n", ret); > + goto fail; Seems unneeded here. > + } > + > +fail: > + ti_sci_put_one_xfer(&info->minfo, xfer); Is this safe? If we didn't wait for the transfer to complete, the rx buffer might still be in use. > + > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int tisci_sys_off_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > +{ > + struct ti_sci_info *info = data->cb_data; > + int i; > + int ret; > + bool enter_partial_io = false; > + > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > + struct platform_device *pdev = > + of_find_device_by_node(info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > + > + if (!pdev) > + continue; > + > + if (device_may_wakeup(&pdev->dev)) { > + dev_dbg(info->dev, "%pOFp identified as wakeup source\n", > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > + enter_partial_io = true; > + } > + } > + > + if (!enter_partial_io) > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > + > + ret = tisci_enter_partial_io(info); > + extra newline > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(info->dev, > + "Failed to enter Partial-IO %pe, trying to do an emergency restart\n", > + ERR_PTR(ret)); > + emergency_restart(); > + } > + > + while (1); Why? If we fail to turn off here, we should try other methods, not lock the system. > + > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > +} > + > /* Description for K2G */ > static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { > .default_host_id = 2, > @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > goto out; > } > > + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { > + info->nr_wakeup_sources = > + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > + NULL); > + info->wakeup_source_nodes = > + devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*info->wakeup_source_nodes), > + GFP_KERNEL); > + > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > + struct device_node *devnode = > + of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > + i); > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i] = devnode; > + } > + > + ret = devm_register_sys_off_handler(dev, > + SYS_OFF_MODE_POWER_OFF, > + SYS_OFF_PRIO_FIRMWARE, So this will be done instead of PSCI sys-off? Maybe a better question, why is this all not done in PSCI off handler in TF-A? > + tisci_sys_off_handler, > + info); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to register sys_off_handler %pe\n", > + ERR_PTR(ret)); > + goto out; > + } > + } > + > dev_info(dev, "ABI: %d.%d (firmware rev 0x%04x '%s')\n", > info->handle.version.abi_major, info->handle.version.abi_minor, > info->handle.version.firmware_revision, > @@ -3407,7 +3523,13 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > list_add_tail(&info->node, &ti_sci_list); > mutex_unlock(&ti_sci_list_mutex); > > - return of_platform_populate(dev->of_node, NULL, NULL, dev); > + ret = of_platform_populate(dev->of_node, NULL, NULL, dev); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "platform_populate failed %pe\n", ERR_PTR(ret)); > + goto out; > + } Need newline here. Also this change is fine, but seems unrelated and might need to go in another patch. Andrew > + return 0; > + > out: > if (!IS_ERR(info->chan_tx)) > mbox_free_channel(info->chan_tx); > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h > index 5846c60220f5..ec8e6bb1791a 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h > +++ b/drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h > @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ > #define TI_SCI_MSG_QUERY_CLOCK_FREQ 0x010d > #define TI_SCI_MSG_GET_CLOCK_FREQ 0x010e > > +/* Low Power Mode Requests */ > +#define TI_SCI_MSG_PREPARE_SLEEP 0x0300 > + > /* Resource Management Requests */ > #define TI_SCI_MSG_GET_RESOURCE_RANGE 0x1500 > > @@ -545,6 +548,37 @@ struct ti_sci_msg_resp_get_clock_freq { > u64 freq_hz; > } __packed; > > +#define TISCI_MSG_VALUE_SLEEP_MODE_DEEP_SLEEP 0x0 > +#define TISCI_MSG_VALUE_SLEEP_MODE_MCU_ONLY 0x1 > +#define TISCI_MSG_VALUE_SLEEP_MODE_STANDBY 0x2 > +/* > + * When sending perpare_sleep with MODE_PARTIAL_IO no response will be sent, > + * no further steps are required. */ > +#define TISCI_MSG_VALUE_SLEEP_MODE_PARTIAL_IO 0x3 > + > +/** > + * struct tisci_msg_req_prepare_sleep - Request for TISCI_MSG_PREPARE_SLEEP. > + * > + * @hdr TISCI header to provide ACK/NAK flags to the host. > + * @mode Low power mode to enter. > + * @ctx_lo Low 32-bits of physical pointer to address to use for context save. > + * @ctx_hi High 32-bits of physical pointer to address to use for context save. > + * @debug_flags Flags that can be set to halt the sequence during suspend or > + * resume to allow JTAG connection and debug. > + * > + * This message is used as the first step of entering a low power mode. It > + * allows configurable information, including which state to enter to be > + * easily shared from the application, as this is a non-secure message and > + * therefore can be sent by anyone. > + */ > +struct ti_sci_msg_req_prepare_sleep { > + struct ti_sci_msg_hdr hdr; > + u8 mode; > + u32 ctx_lo; > + u32 ctx_hi; > + u32 debug_flags; > +} __packed; > + > #define TI_SCI_IRQ_SECONDARY_HOST_INVALID 0xff > > /**
On 10:12-20240730, Andrew Davis wrote: [...] > > + if (response_expected) { > > If a response is not expected why not simply return above and not add even more > indention here? Also, in that case, is the call to mbox_client_txdone() needed? Unless I am mistaken, if you ignore the actual shutdown usage, the mbox_client_txdone will need to be invoked for the tx_tick to be invoked for the next message in the queue to be submitted
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 10:07:22AM GMT, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 15:01-20240730, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > > > > + > > > > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > /* Description for K2G */ > > > > static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { > > > > .default_host_id = 2, > > > > @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > goto out; > > > > } > > > > > > > > + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { > > > > > > You should probably check on TISCI_MSG_QUERY_FW_CAPS[1] if > > > Partial IO on low power mode is supported as well? if there is a > > > mismatch, report so? > > > > I actually have another series in my queue that introduces this check. I > > just implemented this check for Partial-IO yesterday in the patch that > > introduces fw capabilities. If you like I can switch these series > > around. > > Yes, please introduce it part of the series. > > > > > > > > > > + info->nr_wakeup_sources = > > > > + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > > > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > > > + NULL); > > > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes = > > > > + devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*info->wakeup_source_nodes), > > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + > > > > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > > > > + struct device_node *devnode = > > > > + of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, > > > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > > > + i); > > > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i] = devnode; > > > > > > Curious: Don't we need to maintain reference counting for the devnode > > > if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC? > > > > In case you mean I missed of_node_put(), yes, I did, thank you. I added > > it in a ti_sci_remove(). > > And unless I am mistaken, of_node_get as required as you are > retaining the reference of the node till shutdown / remove is invoked. The function documentation says the refcount is already incremented: * Return: The device_node pointer with refcount incremented. Use * of_node_put() on it when done. Best Markus > > -- > Regards, > Nishanth Menon > Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
On 14:36-20240731, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > > > > > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > > > > > + struct device_node *devnode = > > > > > + of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, > > > > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > > > > + i); > > > > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i] = devnode; > > > > > > > > Curious: Don't we need to maintain reference counting for the devnode > > > > if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC? > > > > > > In case you mean I missed of_node_put(), yes, I did, thank you. I added > > > it in a ti_sci_remove(). > > > > And unless I am mistaken, of_node_get as required as you are > > retaining the reference of the node till shutdown / remove is invoked. > > The function documentation says the refcount is already incremented: > > * Return: The device_node pointer with refcount incremented. Use > * of_node_put() on it when done. > Yes indeed. I missed it. Thanks for looking it up.
On 29/07/2024 10:00, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > Hi, > > v2 > -- > In v2 I fixed the comments on the first version of this series and > rebased to v6.11-rc1. See below for a more detailed list. I don't see you even caring to respond to comments, so how do you imagine comments were fixed? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 29/07/2024 10:00, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > +static int tisci_sys_off_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > +{ > + struct ti_sci_info *info = data->cb_data; > + int i; > + int ret; > + bool enter_partial_io = false; > + > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > + struct platform_device *pdev = > + of_find_device_by_node(info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > + > + if (!pdev) > + continue; > + > + if (device_may_wakeup(&pdev->dev)) { ... > + dev_dbg(info->dev, "%pOFp identified as wakeup source\n", > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > + enter_partial_io = true; > + } > + } > + > + if (!enter_partial_io) > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > + > + ret = tisci_enter_partial_io(info); > + > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(info->dev, > + "Failed to enter Partial-IO %pe, trying to do an emergency restart\n", > + ERR_PTR(ret)); > + emergency_restart(); > + } > + > + while (1); > + > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > +} > + > /* Description for K2G */ > static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { > .default_host_id = 2, > @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > goto out; > } > > + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { > + info->nr_wakeup_sources = > + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > + NULL); I don't see the point of this. You have quite a static list of devices - just look at your DTS. Then you don't even do anything useful with the phandles you got here. This property looks entirely useless. I already commented on the binding (which you did not respond to), so let's comment also here: No, it duplicates wakeup-source and your code shows that it is not even needed. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 08:26:00AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 29/07/2024 10:00, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > > +static int tisci_sys_off_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) > > +{ > > + struct ti_sci_info *info = data->cb_data; > > + int i; > > + int ret; > > + bool enter_partial_io = false; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { > > + struct platform_device *pdev = > > + of_find_device_by_node(info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > > + > > + if (!pdev) > > + continue; > > + > > + if (device_may_wakeup(&pdev->dev)) { > > ... > > > + dev_dbg(info->dev, "%pOFp identified as wakeup source\n", > > + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); > > + enter_partial_io = true; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + if (!enter_partial_io) > > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > > + > > + ret = tisci_enter_partial_io(info); > > + > > + if (ret) { > > + dev_err(info->dev, > > + "Failed to enter Partial-IO %pe, trying to do an emergency restart\n", > > + ERR_PTR(ret)); > > + emergency_restart(); > > + } > > + > > + while (1); > > + > > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > > +} > > + > > /* Description for K2G */ > > static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { > > .default_host_id = 2, > > @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > goto out; > > } > > > > + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { > > + info->nr_wakeup_sources = > > + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > > + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", > > + NULL); > > I don't see the point of this. You have quite a static list of devices - > just look at your DTS. Then you don't even do anything useful with the > phandles you got here. I am gathering the list of phandles in probe. Then during shutdown I am resolving the phandles to devices if there are associated devices and check if wakeup is enabled for these devices. If wakeup is enabled for one of the devices in the list, I put the SoC into Partial-IO instead of a normal poweroff. This way the devices which have wakeup enabled can actually wakeup the SoC as requested by the user by setting wakeup enable. Best Markus > > This property looks entirely useless. I already commented on the binding > (which you did not respond to), so let's comment also here: > > No, it duplicates wakeup-source and your code shows that it is not even > needed. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On 06/08/2024 09:19, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 08:26:00AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 29/07/2024 10:00, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: >>> +static int tisci_sys_off_handler(struct sys_off_data *data) >>> +{ >>> + struct ti_sci_info *info = data->cb_data; >>> + int i; >>> + int ret; >>> + bool enter_partial_io = false; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i != info->nr_wakeup_sources; ++i) { >>> + struct platform_device *pdev = >>> + of_find_device_by_node(info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); >>> + >>> + if (!pdev) >>> + continue; >>> + >>> + if (device_may_wakeup(&pdev->dev)) { >> >> ... >> >>> + dev_dbg(info->dev, "%pOFp identified as wakeup source\n", >>> + info->wakeup_source_nodes[i]); >>> + enter_partial_io = true; >>> + } >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (!enter_partial_io) >>> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >>> + >>> + ret = tisci_enter_partial_io(info); >>> + >>> + if (ret) { >>> + dev_err(info->dev, >>> + "Failed to enter Partial-IO %pe, trying to do an emergency restart\n", >>> + ERR_PTR(ret)); >>> + emergency_restart(); >>> + } >>> + >>> + while (1); >>> + >>> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >>> +} >>> + >>> /* Description for K2G */ >>> static const struct ti_sci_desc ti_sci_pmmc_k2g_desc = { >>> .default_host_id = 2, >>> @@ -3398,6 +3485,35 @@ static int ti_sci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> goto out; >>> } >>> >>> + if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources")) { >>> + info->nr_wakeup_sources = >>> + of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, >>> + "ti,partial-io-wakeup-sources", >>> + NULL); >> >> I don't see the point of this. You have quite a static list of devices - >> just look at your DTS. Then you don't even do anything useful with the >> phandles you got here. > > I am gathering the list of phandles in probe. I know what the code is doing. > > Then during shutdown I am resolving the phandles to devices if there > are associated devices and check if wakeup is enabled for these devices. I can read the code. > If wakeup is enabled for one of the devices in the list, I put the > SoC into Partial-IO instead of a normal poweroff. This way the > devices which have wakeup enabled can actually wakeup the SoC as > requested by the user by setting wakeup enable. I see all this. I said there is no point in doing this. Instead of repeating the code, you can say what is the point of doing it. I said once, so repeat one more time - you have *static* list of devices, therefore any DTS is meaningless. It is just fixed, not flexible. The code here is still not doing anything useful with the phandles. By useful I mean - actually enable the wakeup. No, the property is totally misplaced just to satisfy your code. That's a "no". Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi, v2 -- In v2 I fixed the comments on the first version of this series and rebased to v6.11-rc1. See below for a more detailed list. I also dropped the omap serial series for Partial-IO as it can't be tested with Partial-IO at the moment. The code was tested with other low power modes but they will be upstreamed later on. Series ------ Partial-IO is a poweroff SoC state with a few pingroups active for wakeup. This state can be entered by sending a TI_SCI PREPARE_SLEEP message. The message is sent on poweroff if one of the potential wakeup sources for this power state are wakeup enabled. A list of potential wakeup sources for the specific SoC is described in the devicetree. The wakeup sources can be individually enabled/disabled by the user in the running system. The series is based on v6.11-rc1. Partial-IO ---------- This series is part of a bigger topic to support Partial-IO on am62, am62a and am62p. Partial-IO is a poweroff state in which some pins are able to wakeup the SoC. In detail MCU m_can and two serial port pins can trigger the wakeup. A documentation can also be found in section 6.2.4 in the TRM: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiv7 This other series is relevant for the support of Partial-IO: - can: m_can: Add am62 wakeup support https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240729074135.3850634-1-msp@baylibre.com/ https://gitlab.baylibre.com/msp8/linux/-/tree/topic/mcan-wakeup-source/v6.11?ref_type=heads Testing ------- A test branch is available here that includes all patches required to test Partial-IO: https://gitlab.baylibre.com/msp8/linux/-/tree/integration/am62-lp-sk-partialio/v6.11?ref_type=heads After enabling Wake-on-LAN the system can be powered off and will enter the Partial-IO state in which it can be woken up by activity on the specific pins: ethtool -s can0 wol p ethtool -s can1 wol p poweroff I tested these patches on am62-lp-sk. Best, Markus Previous versions: v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240523080225.1288617-1-msp@baylibre.com/ Changes in v2: - Rebase to v6.11-rc1 - dt-binding: - Update commit message - Add more verbose description of the new binding for a better explanation. - ti_sci driver: - Combine ti_sci_do_send() into ti_sci_do_xfer and only wait on a response if a flag is set. - On failure to enter Partial-IO, do emergency_restart() - Add comments - Fix small things Markus Schneider-Pargmann (5): dt-bindings: ti, sci: Add property for partial-io-wakeup-sources firmware: ti_sci: Partial-IO support arm64: dts: ti: k3-pinctrl: Add WKUP_EN flag arm64: dts: ti: k3-am62: Add partial-io wakeup sources arm64: dts: ti: k3-am62a: Add partial-io wakeup sources Vibhore Vardhan (1): arm64: dts: ti: k3-am62p: Add partial-io wakeup sources .../bindings/arm/keystone/ti,sci.yaml | 13 ++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62.dtsi | 4 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62a.dtsi | 4 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62p.dtsi | 4 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-pinctrl.h | 3 + drivers/firmware/ti_sci.c | 160 +++++++++++++++--- drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h | 34 ++++ 7 files changed, 203 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)