Re: [PATCH 4/7] irqchip/irq-qcom-mpm: Program wakeup timer when CPU cluster goes to LPM
Sneh Mankad <[email protected]> Mon, 3 Aug 2026 16:33:28 +0530
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 13-Jul-26 8:48 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:25:44 +0100, > Sneh Mankad <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The next wakeup timer value needs to be set in MPM timer as the arch timer >> interrupt can not wakeup the SoC if after the deepest CPUidle states the >> SoC also enters deepest low power state. >> >> To wakeup the SoC in such scenarios the earliest wakeup time is set in MPM >> timer and the Resource Power Manager (RPM processor) takes care of setting >> the timer in HW. >> >> Add MPM timer programming when CPU cluster enters power collapse. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sneh Mankad <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/irqchip/irq-qcom-mpm.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-qcom-mpm.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-qcom-mpm.c >> index 763eddee99dc4cdd5edab22ce54808528f9ef165..f43c4a1c35f78b6cdae194dc7ae88c5c307ada94 100644 >> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-qcom-mpm.c >> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-qcom-mpm.c >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ >> #include <linux/io.h> >> #include <linux/irqchip.h> >> #include <linux/irqdomain.h> >> +#include <linux/ktime.h> >> #include <linux/mailbox_client.h> >> #include <linux/module.h> >> #include <linux/of.h> >> @@ -25,6 +26,8 @@ >> #include <linux/soc/qcom/irq.h> >> #include <linux/spinlock.h> >> >> +#include <clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h> >> + >> /* >> * This is the driver for Qualcomm MPM (MSM Power Manager) interrupt controller, >> * which is commonly found on Qualcomm SoCs built on the RPM architecture. >> @@ -77,6 +80,13 @@ enum qcom_mpm_reg { >> MPM_REG_STATUS, >> }; >> >> +#define USECS_TO_CYCLES(time_usecs) xloops_to_cycles((time_usecs) * 0x10C7UL) >> + >> +static inline unsigned long xloops_to_cycles(u64 xloops) >> +{ >> + return (xloops * loops_per_jiffy * HZ) >> 32; >> +} >> + > > Do we really need arch-specific code to be literally copied from > arm64's delay.c, without any comment or attempt at making it generic? > > Specially after having added the same stuff to rpmh-rsc.c 4 years ago? > > See a pattern here? Agreed Marc, there should be a more generic way to get this information. I will work on it and post. Thanks, Sneh