On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 08:37, Andrew Murray andrew.murray@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:40:54AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 30/07/2019 13:51, Andrew Murray wrote:
Some coresight components, because of choices made during hardware integration, require their state to be saved and restored across CPU low power states.
The software has no reliable method of detecting when save/restore is required thus let's add a binding to inform the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray andrew.murray@arm.com
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt index fcc3bacfd8bc..7cbdb7893af8 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt @@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ its hardware characteristcs. * arm,cp14: must be present if the system accesses ETM/PTM management registers via co-processor 14.
- arm,coresight-needs-save-restore: boolean. Indicates that software
should save/restore state across power down.Do you think we could be a bit more descriptive here about when people could add it to the DT ? Here we don't mention when someone should use this property and it may be added to platforms where it may be absolutely unnecessary. How about :
"Indicates that the hardware implementation may not honor the Powerup request from the software and thus might loose the register context on CPU power down (e.g, during CPUIdle). Software must save/restore the context during a CPU power transition cycle."
How about the following:
"Indicates that the hardware will loose register context on CPU power down (e.g. CPUIdle), despite the TRCPDCR.PU bit being set."
I'm keen to avoid making suggestions about what the kernel will do when it sees this flag and thus prefer to focus on describing what the hardware does. So I dropped your last sentence. However the name of the flag still implies policy which I don't like.
I also changed the 'may not honor' wording, I'm not sure if this is really the case or if the spec is open to interpretation.
It would great for this wording to also apply to other CS components though I haven't investigated if these have a PU bit or something different.
Exactly - the definition needs to be broad enough to apply to other CS components. Mike what do you think would be appropriate for CTIs?
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
Cheers Suzuki