Subject: [PATCH V3 10/19] drm/tegra: dc: Prepare for generic PM domains

From: [email-masked] (Jon Hunter)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:30:04 +0100

On 17/07/15 11:41, Thierry Reding wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
> 
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 01:39:48PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Add support to the tegra dc driver for generic PM domains. However,
>> to ensure backward compatibility with older device tree blobs ensure
>> that the driver can work with or without generic PM domains. In order
>> to migrate to generic PM domain infrastructure the necessary changes
>> are:
>>
>> 1. If the "power-domains" property is present in the DT device node then
>>    generic PM domains is supported and pm_runtime_enable() should be
>>    called for the device. Furthermore, the enabling and disabling of the
>>    power-domain is handled via calling pm_runtime_get/put, respectively.
> 
> The device could be PM runtime enabled even if no power-domains property
> is set. Couldn't we check something more direct, like for example if the
> dev->pm_domain is non-NULL?

Yes could do that instead.

> Perhaps it'd be worth converting the driver to use runtime PM first, and
> move all the powergate and clock handling into suspend/resume functions,
> and then we can conditionalize whether or not we call the legacy API iff
> dev->pm_domain == NULL?

May be that would be a cleaner transition than trying to do it all in
one go.

>> 2. To ensure that clocks are managed consistently when generic PM domains
>>    are used and are not used, drivers should be migrated to use the
>>    tegra_powergate_power_on_legacy() and tegra_powergate_power_off_legacy()
>>    functions instead of the current tegra_powergate_sequence_power_up()
>>    and tegra_powergate_power_off(). The purpose of the
>>    tegra_powergate_power_on_legacy() and tegra_powergate_power_off_legacy()
>>    APIs is to mimick the behaviour of the tegra generic power-domain code,
>>    such that if generic power domains are not supported the functionality
>>    is the same.
>>
>> 3. The main difference between the tegra_powergate_sequence_power_up() API
>>    and the tegra_powergate_power_on_legacy() is that the clock used to
>>    enable the powergate is not kept enabled when using the
>>    tegra_powergate_power_on_legacy() API. Therefore, drivers must enable
>>    the clocks they need after calling tegra_powergate_power_on_legacy()
>>    and disable these clocks before calling
>>    tegra_powergate_power_off_legacy().
> 
> This seems like it should go into the previous patch. I'm not sure I
> understand why this is necessary. Wouldn't it be easier to update the
> drivers to properly cope with this? We'll need to move them to runtime
> PM at some point anyway, so if we do that first, we should be able to
> hide all these details within the driver's suspend/resume functions
> but without the need for the API churn here.

I will take a look at that. I was trying to get the clock handling in
the driver to be consistent when generic power domains are used and when
they are not. However, may be that is not a big deal.

Jon