[PATCH v4] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests

en Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Mark Rutland Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla --- drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c | 83 - 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) Hi ARM SoC, Though the fixes tag points to a commit in

[PATCH v3] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests

en Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Mark Rutland Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla --- drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c | 83 - 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) v2->v3: - Got rid of find_cpu_groups as suggested

Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests

On 19/07/18 15:20, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:35:49PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] >> +static cpumask_var_t *alloc_cpu_groups(int num) >> +{ >> +int i; >> +cpumask_var_t *cpu_groups; >> + >> +cpu_groups = kcal

[PATCH v2] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests

en Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Mark Rutland Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla --- drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c | 53 - 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) v1->v2: - Move allocation and freeing of t

Re: [PATCH] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:49:30PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > Commit 7f9545aa1a91 ("arm64: smp: remove cpu and numa topology > > information when hotplugging out CPU") updates the cpu topology when

[PATCH] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: stash and use topology_core_cpumask for hotplug tests

en Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Mark Rutland Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla --- drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c | 30 -- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c b/drivers/firmware/

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] arm64: smp: remove cpu and numa topology information when hotplugging out CPU

On 18/07/18 08:15, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:02 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:55:22PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> Going through the code again, I think I understand the problem here. >>&

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] arm64: smp: remove cpu and numa topology information when hotplugging out CPU

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:55:22PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: [..] > Going through the code again, I think I understand the problem here. > We use the topology_core_mask pointers which are stashed in cpu_groups[] > But, the cpumask themselves will be getting modified as the cpus go up &

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] arm64: smp: remove cpu and numa topology information when hotplugging out CPU

On 17/07/18 16:34, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 17/07/18 16:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Hi Sudeep, >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:05 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>> On

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] arm64: smp: remove cpu and numa topology information when hotplugging out CPU

On 17/07/18 16:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:05 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:04 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] >>>

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] arm64: smp: remove cpu and numa topology information when hotplugging out CPU

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:04 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: > > We already repopulate the information on CPU hotplug-in, so we can safely > > remove the CPU topology and NUMA cpumap information durin

Re: [PATCH] regulator: Fix resume from suspend to idle

tor: Fix suspend to idle"), > which fixed the suspend part. > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be> Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: r8a7796: Add OPPs table for cpu devices

On 09/10/17 12:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 05/10/17 14:26, Simon Horman wrote: >>> From: Dien Pham <dien.pham...@rvc.renesas.com> >>>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: r8a7796: Add OPPs table for cpu devices

On 05/10/17 14:26, Simon Horman wrote: > From: Dien Pham > > Current, OPP tables are defined temporary, > they are being evaluated and adjust in future. > I assume these OPPs will continue to work in future but just not optimal. > Based in part on work by Hien

Re: Clocks used by another OS/CPU (was: Re: [RFC PATCH] clk: renesas: cpg-mssr: Add interface for critical core clocks)

On 04/07/17 08:31, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:17:22AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 01/07/17 19:14, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 07:02:48AM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:

Re: Clocks used by another OS/CPU (was: Re: [RFC PATCH] clk: renesas: cpg-mssr: Add interface for critical core clocks)

On 01/07/17 19:14, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 07:02:48AM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote: [...] >> >> >> The other problem is security related. If, at all, you have to do it the >> other way around, then: >> >> Make Linux a consumer of the other CPU's

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 23/02/17 15:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 22/02/17 13:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.c

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

Hi Geert, On 23/02/17 15:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven > <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >>> On 22/02/17 13:38

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 22/02/17 14:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: [...] >> >> OK, I thought I had told this before. What do you mean by PSCI system >> suspend can't wakeup from the configured wakeup source. You

Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode

On 22/02/17 13:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: [...] >> >> IIUC, it's not implemented today. I can't talk about future ;), but your > > Good, so there's no need

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 22/02/17 13:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 22/02/17 01:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:45:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >> &g

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 22/02/17 01:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:45:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] >> >> I take this back, you have everything you need in place, nothing needs >> to be done. I just checked again. If I don't register PSCI suspend_ops, >&

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 21/02/17 18:27, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 21/02/17 17:51, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 21/02/17 17:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > [...] > >>> >>> The SoC can wake-up. It's just not guaranteed that it can wake-up using >

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 21/02/17 17:51, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 21/02/17 17:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: [...] >> >> The SoC can wake-up. It's just not guaranteed that it can wake-up using >> the wakeup-source configured from Linux. Which wakeup-sources are available &g

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 21/02/17 17:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 21/02/17 16:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.c

Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode

On 21/02/17 16:32, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 21/02/17 11:07, Pavel Machek wrote: >>>> Enable support for "shallow" suspend mode, also k

Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode

On 21/02/17 16:23, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 20/02/17 20:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> Enable support for "shallow" suspend mode, also kno

Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

Hi Geert, On 21/02/17 16:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 20/02/17 20:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> Nothing in the PSCI specification requires the SoC to remain powe

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

Hi Geert, On 21/02/17 16:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 20/02/17 20:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> This patch series adds support for using non-PMIC wake-up sources

Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode

On 21/02/17 11:07, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Enable support for "shallow" suspend mode, also known as "Standby" or >> "Power-On Suspend". >> >> As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves >> slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode. >>

Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

On 20/02/17 20:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Nothing in the PSCI specification requires the SoC to remain powered and > to support wake-up sources when suspended using SYSTEM_SUSPEND. > If the firmware implements the PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND operation by cutting > power to the SoC, the only

Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode

Hi Geert, On 20/02/17 20:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Enable support for "shallow" suspend mode, also known as "Standby" or > "Power-On Suspend". > > As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves > slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode.

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power

Hi Geert, On 20/02/17 20:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi all, > > This patch series adds support for using non-PMIC wake-up sources on the > Renesas R-Car Gen3 (H3 or M3-W) Salvator-X development boards. > > Nothing in the PSCI specification requires the SoC to remain powered and > to

Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Upgrade to PSCI v1.0 to support Suspend-to-RAM

On 17/02/17 17:00, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > From: Khiem Nguyen > > From PSCI v1.0, Suspend-to-RAM is supported via SYSTEM_SUSPEND PSCI > function call. Hence, upgrade PSCI version for R-Car H3 to support > Suspend-to-RAM. > > The Suspend-to-RAM is highly

Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: dts: r8a7796: Add CA53 L2 cache-controller node

On 17/02/17 15:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Add a device node for the Cortex-A53 L2 cache-controller. > > The L2 cache for the Cortex-A53 CPU cores is 512 KiB large (organized as > 32 KiB x 16 ways). > > Extracted from a patch by Takeshi Kihara in the BSP. > > Signed-off-by: Geert

Re: [RFC PATCH] of: base: add support to get machine model name

On 17/11/16 14:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:08:30 PM CET Sudeep Holla wrote: On 17/11/16 13:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:50:50 AM CET Sudeep Holla wrote: Currently platforms/drivers needing to get the machine model name

Re: [RFC PATCH] of: base: add support to get machine model name

On 17/11/16 13:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:50:50 AM CET Sudeep Holla wrote: Currently platforms/drivers needing to get the machine model name are replicating the same snippet of code. In some case, the OF reference counting is either missing or incorrect

[RFC PATCH] of: base: add support to get machine model name

tible" property in the device tree root node. Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/mach-imx/cpu.c | 4 +--- arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mxs.c | 3 +-- arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c | 12 ++-- arch/mips/generic/proc.c | 15 +++--

Re: [PATCH v2] drivers: psci: PSCI checker module

On 24/10/16 09:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: On 20/10/16 14:38, Kevin Brodsky wrote: [...] Thanks for the heads-up! I'll rebase on 4.9-rc1 and see what needs to be done. Just be aware that v4.9-rc1 doesn'

Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Add CA53 L2 cache-controller node

On 16/02/16 07:12, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: Hi Dirk, On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Dirk Behme wrote: [...] As we don't have any CA53 in the device tree yet, and it was rejected to add it, I'd think that we don't want these unused entries at the moment.

Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Add missing properties to CA57 L2 cache node

On 16/02/16 06:40, Dirk Behme wrote: On 15.02.2016 21:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: Add the missing "cache-unified" and "cache-level" properties to the Cortex-A57 cache-controller node. Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven --- v3: - Remaining part of "[PATCH v2 6/6]