Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jassi Brar jaswinder.si...@linaro.org wrote: The patch can make usb port deal with the 'power controller' only, and make it avoid to deal with regulators/clocks/... directly. I am curious too, except for clocks and voltage supplies (regulators), what other external resources does a chip need ? For example, one indicator LED which doesn't connect to the same power domain might need to be triggered after the power switch state is changed. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
On 6 December 2012 18:48, Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jassi Brar jaswinder.si...@linaro.org wrote: The patch can make usb port deal with the 'power controller' only, and make it avoid to deal with regulators/clocks/... directly. I am curious too, except for clocks and voltage supplies (regulators), what other external resources does a chip need ? For example, one indicator LED which doesn't connect to the same power domain might need to be triggered after the power switch state is changed. Hmm.. I am not sure if we could call an indicator LED a resource that a chip needs to be functional. Isn't how mmc core manages the indicator led, a better way? cheers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
On 12/03/2012 05:00 AM, Ming Lei wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Andy Green andy.gr...@linaro.org wrote: On 02/12/12 23:01, the mail apparently from Ming Lei included: Power controller is an abstract on simple power on/off switch. One power controller can bind to more than one device, which provides power logically, for example, we can think one usb port in hub provides power to the usb device attached to the port, even though the power is supplied actually by other ways, eg. the usb hub is a self-power device. From hardware view, more than one device can share one power domain, and power controller can power on if one of these devices need to provide power, and power off if all these devices don't need to provide power. What stops us using struct regulator here? If you have child regulators supplied by a parent supply, isn't that the right semantic already without introducing a whole new thing? Apologies if I missed the point. There are two purposes: One is to hide the implementation details of the power controller because the user doesn't care how it is implemented, maybe clock, regulator, gpio and other platform dependent stuffs involved, so the patch simplify the usage from the view of users. Which user are you talking about? AFAIK for Panda we only need a regulator and a clock for each root port. IMHO we should just use the existing regulator and clock frameworks. Another is that several users may share one power controller, and the introduced power controller can help users to use it. True. e.g. the same regulator could be used to power 3 root hub ports in a ganged setup. But the regulator framework is sufficient to deal with that. Each port will call regulator_get() and regulator_enable() and the physical regulator won't be disabled till all of them have called regulator_disable(). regards, -roger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com wrote: On 12/03/2012 05:00 AM, Ming Lei wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Andy Green andy.gr...@linaro.org wrote: On 02/12/12 23:01, the mail apparently from Ming Lei included: Power controller is an abstract on simple power on/off switch. One power controller can bind to more than one device, which provides power logically, for example, we can think one usb port in hub provides power to the usb device attached to the port, even though the power is supplied actually by other ways, eg. the usb hub is a self-power device. From hardware view, more than one device can share one power domain, and power controller can power on if one of these devices need to provide power, and power off if all these devices don't need to provide power. What stops us using struct regulator here? If you have child regulators supplied by a parent supply, isn't that the right semantic already without introducing a whole new thing? Apologies if I missed the point. There are two purposes: One is to hide the implementation details of the power controller because the user doesn't care how it is implemented, maybe clock, regulator, gpio and other platform dependent stuffs involved, so the patch simplify the usage from the view of users. Which user are you talking about? Here it is the usb port device. At least, there are many boards which have hardwired and self-powered usb devices, so in theory they can benefits from the power controller. Maybe only regulator and clock can't be covered completely for other boards. The patch can make usb port deal with the 'power controller' only, and make it avoid to deal with regulators/clocks/... directly. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
On 6 December 2012 06:57, Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com wrote: On 12/03/2012 05:00 AM, Ming Lei wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Andy Green andy.gr...@linaro.org wrote: On 02/12/12 23:01, the mail apparently from Ming Lei included: Power controller is an abstract on simple power on/off switch. One power controller can bind to more than one device, which provides power logically, for example, we can think one usb port in hub provides power to the usb device attached to the port, even though the power is supplied actually by other ways, eg. the usb hub is a self-power device. From hardware view, more than one device can share one power domain, and power controller can power on if one of these devices need to provide power, and power off if all these devices don't need to provide power. What stops us using struct regulator here? If you have child regulators supplied by a parent supply, isn't that the right semantic already without introducing a whole new thing? Apologies if I missed the point. There are two purposes: One is to hide the implementation details of the power controller because the user doesn't care how it is implemented, maybe clock, regulator, gpio and other platform dependent stuffs involved, so the patch simplify the usage from the view of users. Which user are you talking about? Here it is the usb port device. At least, there are many boards which have hardwired and self-powered usb devices, so in theory they can benefits from the power controller. Maybe only regulator and clock can't be covered completely for other boards. The patch can make usb port deal with the 'power controller' only, and make it avoid to deal with regulators/clocks/... directly. I am curious too, except for clocks and voltage supplies (regulators), what other external resources does a chip need ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
Power controller is an abstract on simple power on/off switch.
One power controller can bind to more than one device, which
provides power logically, for example, we can think one usb port
in hub provides power to the usb device attached to the port, even
though the power is supplied actually by other ways, eg. the usb
hub is a self-power device. From hardware view, more than one
device can share one power domain, and power controller can power
on if one of these devices need to provide power, and power off if
all these devices don't need to provide power.
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Cc: Andy Green andy.gr...@linaro.org
Cc: Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com
Cc: Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu
Cc: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com
---
drivers/base/power/Makefile |1 +
drivers/base/power/power_controller.c | 110 +
include/linux/power_controller.h | 48 ++
kernel/power/Kconfig |6 ++
4 files changed, 165 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
create mode 100644 include/linux/power_controller.h
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/Makefile b/drivers/base/power/Makefile
index 2e58ebb..c08bfc9 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/base/power/Makefile
@@ -5,5 +5,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PM_TRACE_RTC) += trace.o
obj-$(CONFIG_PM_OPP) += opp.o
obj-$(CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS) += domain.o domain_governor.o
obj-$(CONFIG_HAVE_CLK) += clock_ops.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_POWER_CONTROLLER) += power_controller.o
ccflags-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_DRIVER) := -DDEBUG
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
b/drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..d7671fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+#include linux/init.h
+#include linux/kernel.h
+#include linux/power_controller.h
+#include linux/slab.h
+#include linux/err.h
+#include linux/export.h
+
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(pc_lock);
+
+static void pc_devm_release(struct device *dev, void *res)
+{
+}
+
+static int pc_devm_match(struct device *dev, void *res, void *match_data)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data = res;
+
+ return (data-magic == (unsigned long)pc_devm_release);
+}
+
+static struct pc_dev_data *dev_pc_data(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data;
+
+ data = devres_find(dev, pc_devm_release, pc_devm_match, NULL);
+ return data;
+}
+
+static int pc_add_devm_data(struct device *dev, struct power_controller *pc,
+ void *dev_data, int dev_data_size)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ mutex_lock(pc_lock);
+
+ /* each device should only have one power controller resource */
+ data = dev_pc_data(dev);
+ if (data) {
+ ret = 1;
+ goto exit;
+ }
+
+ data = devres_alloc(pc_devm_release, sizeof(struct pc_dev_data) +
+ dev_data_size, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!data) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto exit;
+ }
+
+ data-magic = (unsigned long)pc_devm_release;
+ data-pc = pc;
+ data-dev_data = data[1];
+ memcpy(data-dev_data, dev_data, dev_data_size);
+ devres_add(dev, data);
+
+exit:
+ mutex_unlock(pc_lock);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static struct power_controller *dev_pc(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data = dev_pc_data(dev);
+
+ if (data)
+ return data-pc;
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+struct pc_dev_data *dev_pc_get_data(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data = dev_pc_data(dev);
+ return data;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_get_data);
+
+int dev_pc_bind(struct power_controller *pc, struct device *dev,
+ void *dev_data, int dev_data_size)
+{
+ return pc_add_devm_data(dev, pc, dev_data, dev_data_size);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_bind);
+
+void dev_pc_unbind(struct power_controller *pc, struct device *dev)
+{
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_unbind);
+
+void dev_pc_power_on(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct power_controller *pc = dev_pc(dev);
+
+ if (!pc)return;
+
+ if (atomic_inc_return(pc-count) == 1)
+ pc-power_on(pc, dev);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_power_on);
+
+void dev_pc_power_off(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct power_controller *pc = dev_pc(dev);
+
+ if (!pc)return;
+
+ if (!atomic_dec_return(pc-count))
+ pc-power_off(pc, dev);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_power_off);
diff --git a/include/linux/power_controller.h b/include/linux/power_controller.h
new file mode 100644
index 000..772f6d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/power_controller.h
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+#ifndef _LINUX_POWER_CONTROLLER_H
+#define _LINUX_POWER_CONTROLLER_H
+
+#include linux/device.h
+
+/*
+ * One power controller provides simple power on and power off.
+ *
+ * One power controller can
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
On 02/12/12 23:01, the mail apparently from Ming Lei included:
Power controller is an abstract on simple power on/off switch.
One power controller can bind to more than one device, which
provides power logically, for example, we can think one usb port
in hub provides power to the usb device attached to the port, even
though the power is supplied actually by other ways, eg. the usb
hub is a self-power device. From hardware view, more than one
device can share one power domain, and power controller can power
on if one of these devices need to provide power, and power off if
all these devices don't need to provide power.
What stops us using struct regulator here? If you have child regulators
supplied by a parent supply, isn't that the right semantic already
without introducing a whole new thing? Apologies if I missed the point.
-Andy
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Cc: Andy Green andy.gr...@linaro.org
Cc: Roger Quadros rog...@ti.com
Cc: Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu
Cc: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com
---
drivers/base/power/Makefile |1 +
drivers/base/power/power_controller.c | 110 +
include/linux/power_controller.h | 48 ++
kernel/power/Kconfig |6 ++
4 files changed, 165 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
create mode 100644 include/linux/power_controller.h
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/Makefile b/drivers/base/power/Makefile
index 2e58ebb..c08bfc9 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/base/power/Makefile
@@ -5,5 +5,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PM_TRACE_RTC) += trace.o
obj-$(CONFIG_PM_OPP) += opp.o
obj-$(CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS) += domain.o domain_governor.o
obj-$(CONFIG_HAVE_CLK)+= clock_ops.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_POWER_CONTROLLER) += power_controller.o
ccflags-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_DRIVER) := -DDEBUG
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
b/drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..d7671fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/base/power/power_controller.c
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+#include linux/init.h
+#include linux/kernel.h
+#include linux/power_controller.h
+#include linux/slab.h
+#include linux/err.h
+#include linux/export.h
+
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(pc_lock);
+
+static void pc_devm_release(struct device *dev, void *res)
+{
+}
+
+static int pc_devm_match(struct device *dev, void *res, void *match_data)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data = res;
+
+ return (data-magic == (unsigned long)pc_devm_release);
+}
+
+static struct pc_dev_data *dev_pc_data(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data;
+
+ data = devres_find(dev, pc_devm_release, pc_devm_match, NULL);
+ return data;
+}
+
+static int pc_add_devm_data(struct device *dev, struct power_controller *pc,
+ void *dev_data, int dev_data_size)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ mutex_lock(pc_lock);
+
+ /* each device should only have one power controller resource */
+ data = dev_pc_data(dev);
+ if (data) {
+ ret = 1;
+ goto exit;
+ }
+
+ data = devres_alloc(pc_devm_release, sizeof(struct pc_dev_data) +
+ dev_data_size, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!data) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto exit;
+ }
+
+ data-magic = (unsigned long)pc_devm_release;
+ data-pc = pc;
+ data-dev_data = data[1];
+ memcpy(data-dev_data, dev_data, dev_data_size);
+ devres_add(dev, data);
+
+exit:
+ mutex_unlock(pc_lock);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static struct power_controller *dev_pc(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data = dev_pc_data(dev);
+
+ if (data)
+ return data-pc;
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+struct pc_dev_data *dev_pc_get_data(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pc_dev_data *data = dev_pc_data(dev);
+ return data;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_get_data);
+
+int dev_pc_bind(struct power_controller *pc, struct device *dev,
+ void *dev_data, int dev_data_size)
+{
+ return pc_add_devm_data(dev, pc, dev_data, dev_data_size);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_bind);
+
+void dev_pc_unbind(struct power_controller *pc, struct device *dev)
+{
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_unbind);
+
+void dev_pc_power_on(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct power_controller *pc = dev_pc(dev);
+
+ if (!pc)return;
+
+ if (atomic_inc_return(pc-count) == 1)
+ pc-power_on(pc, dev);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_power_on);
+
+void dev_pc_power_off(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct power_controller *pc = dev_pc(dev);
+
+ if (!pc)return;
+
+ if (!atomic_dec_return(pc-count))
+ pc-power_off(pc, dev);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_pc_power_off);
diff --git a/include/linux/power_controller.h b/include/linux/power_controller.h
new file
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] Device Power: introduce power controller
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Andy Green andy.gr...@linaro.org wrote: On 02/12/12 23:01, the mail apparently from Ming Lei included: Power controller is an abstract on simple power on/off switch. One power controller can bind to more than one device, which provides power logically, for example, we can think one usb port in hub provides power to the usb device attached to the port, even though the power is supplied actually by other ways, eg. the usb hub is a self-power device. From hardware view, more than one device can share one power domain, and power controller can power on if one of these devices need to provide power, and power off if all these devices don't need to provide power. What stops us using struct regulator here? If you have child regulators supplied by a parent supply, isn't that the right semantic already without introducing a whole new thing? Apologies if I missed the point. There are two purposes: One is to hide the implementation details of the power controller because the user doesn't care how it is implemented, maybe clock, regulator, gpio and other platform dependent stuffs involved, so the patch simplify the usage from the view of users. Another is that several users may share one power controller, and the introduced power controller can help users to use it. Also the power controller is stored as device resource, not any new stuff added into 'struct device', and all users of the power controller needn't write code to operate device resource things too. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
