[Feature]add MT2731_MP2_MR2_SVN388 baseline version
Change-Id: Ief04314834b31e27effab435d3ca8ba33b499059
diff --git a/src/kernel/linux/v4.14/Documentation/arm/cluster-pm-race-avoidance.txt b/src/kernel/linux/v4.14/Documentation/arm/cluster-pm-race-avoidance.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..750b6fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/kernel/linux/v4.14/Documentation/arm/cluster-pm-race-avoidance.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,498 @@
+Cluster-wide Power-up/power-down race avoidance algorithm
+=========================================================
+
+This file documents the algorithm which is used to coordinate CPU and
+cluster setup and teardown operations and to manage hardware coherency
+controls safely.
+
+The section "Rationale" explains what the algorithm is for and why it is
+needed. "Basic model" explains general concepts using a simplified view
+of the system. The other sections explain the actual details of the
+algorithm in use.
+
+
+Rationale
+---------
+
+In a system containing multiple CPUs, it is desirable to have the
+ability to turn off individual CPUs when the system is idle, reducing
+power consumption and thermal dissipation.
+
+In a system containing multiple clusters of CPUs, it is also desirable
+to have the ability to turn off entire clusters.
+
+Turning entire clusters off and on is a risky business, because it
+involves performing potentially destructive operations affecting a group
+of independently running CPUs, while the OS continues to run. This
+means that we need some coordination in order to ensure that critical
+cluster-level operations are only performed when it is truly safe to do
+so.
+
+Simple locking may not be sufficient to solve this problem, because
+mechanisms like Linux spinlocks may rely on coherency mechanisms which
+are not immediately enabled when a cluster powers up. Since enabling or
+disabling those mechanisms may itself be a non-atomic operation (such as
+writing some hardware registers and invalidating large caches), other
+methods of coordination are required in order to guarantee safe
+power-down and power-up at the cluster level.
+
+The mechanism presented in this document describes a coherent memory
+based protocol for performing the needed coordination. It aims to be as
+lightweight as possible, while providing the required safety properties.
+
+
+Basic model
+-----------
+
+Each cluster and CPU is assigned a state, as follows:
+
+ DOWN
+ COMING_UP
+ UP
+ GOING_DOWN
+
+ +---------> UP ----------+
+ | v
+
+ COMING_UP GOING_DOWN
+
+ ^ |
+ +--------- DOWN <--------+
+
+
+DOWN: The CPU or cluster is not coherent, and is either powered off or
+ suspended, or is ready to be powered off or suspended.
+
+COMING_UP: The CPU or cluster has committed to moving to the UP state.
+ It may be part way through the process of initialisation and
+ enabling coherency.
+
+UP: The CPU or cluster is active and coherent at the hardware
+ level. A CPU in this state is not necessarily being used
+ actively by the kernel.
+
+GOING_DOWN: The CPU or cluster has committed to moving to the DOWN
+ state. It may be part way through the process of teardown and
+ coherency exit.
+
+
+Each CPU has one of these states assigned to it at any point in time.
+The CPU states are described in the "CPU state" section, below.
+
+Each cluster is also assigned a state, but it is necessary to split the
+state value into two parts (the "cluster" state and "inbound" state) and
+to introduce additional states in order to avoid races between different
+CPUs in the cluster simultaneously modifying the state. The cluster-
+level states are described in the "Cluster state" section.
+
+To help distinguish the CPU states from cluster states in this
+discussion, the state names are given a CPU_ prefix for the CPU states,
+and a CLUSTER_ or INBOUND_ prefix for the cluster states.
+
+
+CPU state
+---------
+
+In this algorithm, each individual core in a multi-core processor is
+referred to as a "CPU". CPUs are assumed to be single-threaded:
+therefore, a CPU can only be doing one thing at a single point in time.
+
+This means that CPUs fit the basic model closely.
+
+The algorithm defines the following states for each CPU in the system:
+
+ CPU_DOWN
+ CPU_COMING_UP
+ CPU_UP
+ CPU_GOING_DOWN
+
+ cluster setup and
+ CPU setup complete policy decision
+ +-----------> CPU_UP ------------+
+ | v
+
+ CPU_COMING_UP CPU_GOING_DOWN
+
+ ^ |
+ +----------- CPU_DOWN <----------+
+ policy decision CPU teardown complete
+ or hardware event
+
+
+The definitions of the four states correspond closely to the states of
+the basic model.
+
+Transitions between states occur as follows.
+
+A trigger event (spontaneous) means that the CPU can transition to the
+next state as a result of making local progress only, with no
+requirement for any external event to happen.
+
+
+CPU_DOWN:
+
+ A CPU reaches the CPU_DOWN state when it is ready for
+ power-down. On reaching this state, the CPU will typically
+ power itself down or suspend itself, via a WFI instruction or a
+ firmware call.
+
+ Next state: CPU_COMING_UP
+ Conditions: none
+
+ Trigger events:
+
+ a) an explicit hardware power-up operation, resulting
+ from a policy decision on another CPU;
+
+ b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt.
+
+
+CPU_COMING_UP:
+
+ A CPU cannot start participating in hardware coherency until the
+ cluster is set up and coherent. If the cluster is not ready,
+ then the CPU will wait in the CPU_COMING_UP state until the
+ cluster has been set up.
+
+ Next state: CPU_UP
+ Conditions: The CPU's parent cluster must be in CLUSTER_UP.
+ Trigger events: Transition of the parent cluster to CLUSTER_UP.
+
+ Refer to the "Cluster state" section for a description of the
+ CLUSTER_UP state.
+
+
+CPU_UP:
+ When a CPU reaches the CPU_UP state, it is safe for the CPU to
+ start participating in local coherency.
+
+ This is done by jumping to the kernel's CPU resume code.
+
+ Note that the definition of this state is slightly different
+ from the basic model definition: CPU_UP does not mean that the
+ CPU is coherent yet, but it does mean that it is safe to resume
+ the kernel. The kernel handles the rest of the resume
+ procedure, so the remaining steps are not visible as part of the
+ race avoidance algorithm.
+
+ The CPU remains in this state until an explicit policy decision
+ is made to shut down or suspend the CPU.
+
+ Next state: CPU_GOING_DOWN
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events: explicit policy decision
+
+
+CPU_GOING_DOWN:
+
+ While in this state, the CPU exits coherency, including any
+ operations required to achieve this (such as cleaning data
+ caches).
+
+ Next state: CPU_DOWN
+ Conditions: local CPU teardown complete
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+Cluster state
+-------------
+
+A cluster is a group of connected CPUs with some common resources.
+Because a cluster contains multiple CPUs, it can be doing multiple
+things at the same time. This has some implications. In particular, a
+CPU can start up while another CPU is tearing the cluster down.
+
+In this discussion, the "outbound side" is the view of the cluster state
+as seen by a CPU tearing the cluster down. The "inbound side" is the
+view of the cluster state as seen by a CPU setting the CPU up.
+
+In order to enable safe coordination in such situations, it is important
+that a CPU which is setting up the cluster can advertise its state
+independently of the CPU which is tearing down the cluster. For this
+reason, the cluster state is split into two parts:
+
+ "cluster" state: The global state of the cluster; or the state
+ on the outbound side:
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN
+ CLUSTER_UP
+ CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN
+
+ "inbound" state: The state of the cluster on the inbound side.
+
+ INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+ INBOUND_COMING_UP
+
+
+ The different pairings of these states results in six possible
+ states for the cluster as a whole:
+
+ CLUSTER_UP
+ +==========> INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP -------------+
+ # |
+ |
+ CLUSTER_UP <----+ |
+ INBOUND_COMING_UP | v
+
+ ^ CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN
+ # INBOUND_COMING_UP <=== INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN | |
+ INBOUND_COMING_UP <----+ |
+ |
+ ^ |
+ +=========== CLUSTER_DOWN <------------+
+ INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+
+ Transitions -----> can only be made by the outbound CPU, and
+ only involve changes to the "cluster" state.
+
+ Transitions ===##> can only be made by the inbound CPU, and only
+ involve changes to the "inbound" state, except where there is no
+ further transition possible on the outbound side (i.e., the
+ outbound CPU has put the cluster into the CLUSTER_DOWN state).
+
+ The race avoidance algorithm does not provide a way to determine
+ which exact CPUs within the cluster play these roles. This must
+ be decided in advance by some other means. Refer to the section
+ "Last man and first man selection" for more explanation.
+
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP is the only state where the
+ cluster can actually be powered down.
+
+ The parallelism of the inbound and outbound CPUs is observed by
+ the existence of two different paths from CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/
+ INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (corresponding to GOING_DOWN in the basic
+ model) to CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (corresponding to
+ COMING_UP in the basic model). The second path avoids cluster
+ teardown completely.
+
+ CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP is equivalent to UP in the basic
+ model. The final transition to CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+ is trivial and merely resets the state machine ready for the
+ next cycle.
+
+ Details of the allowable transitions follow.
+
+ The next state in each case is notated
+
+ <cluster state>/<inbound state> (<transitioner>)
+
+ where the <transitioner> is the side on which the transition
+ can occur; either the inbound or the outbound side.
+
+
+CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP:
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events:
+
+ a) an explicit hardware power-up operation, resulting
+ from a policy decision on another CPU;
+
+ b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt.
+
+
+CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP:
+
+ In this state, an inbound CPU sets up the cluster, including
+ enabling of hardware coherency at the cluster level and any
+ other operations (such as cache invalidation) which are required
+ in order to achieve this.
+
+ The purpose of this state is to do sufficient cluster-level
+ setup to enable other CPUs in the cluster to enter coherency
+ safely.
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: cluster-level setup and hardware coherency complete
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP:
+
+ Cluster-level setup is complete and hardware coherency is
+ enabled for the cluster. Other CPUs in the cluster can safely
+ enter coherency.
+
+ This is a transient state, leading immediately to
+ CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP. All other CPUs on the cluster
+ should consider treat these two states as equivalent.
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP:
+
+ Cluster-level setup is complete and hardware coherency is
+ enabled for the cluster. Other CPUs in the cluster can safely
+ enter coherency.
+
+ The cluster will remain in this state until a policy decision is
+ made to power the cluster down.
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events: policy decision to power down the cluster
+
+
+CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP:
+
+ An outbound CPU is tearing the cluster down. The selected CPU
+ must wait in this state until all CPUs in the cluster are in the
+ CPU_DOWN state.
+
+ When all CPUs are in the CPU_DOWN state, the cluster can be torn
+ down, for example by cleaning data caches and exiting
+ cluster-level coherency.
+
+ To avoid wasteful unnecessary teardown operations, the outbound
+ should check the inbound cluster state for asynchronous
+ transitions to INBOUND_COMING_UP. Alternatively, individual
+ CPUs can be checked for entry into CPU_COMING_UP or CPU_UP.
+
+
+ Next states:
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: cluster torn down and ready to power off
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+ CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events:
+
+ a) an explicit hardware power-up operation,
+ resulting from a policy decision on another
+ CPU;
+
+ b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt.
+
+
+CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP:
+
+ The cluster is (or was) being torn down, but another CPU has
+ come online in the meantime and is trying to set up the cluster
+ again.
+
+ If the outbound CPU observes this state, it has two choices:
+
+ a) back out of teardown, restoring the cluster to the
+ CLUSTER_UP state;
+
+ b) finish tearing the cluster down and put the cluster
+ in the CLUSTER_DOWN state; the inbound CPU will
+ set up the cluster again from there.
+
+ Choice (a) permits the removal of some latency by avoiding
+ unnecessary teardown and setup operations in situations where
+ the cluster is not really going to be powered down.
+
+
+ Next states:
+
+ CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: cluster-level setup and hardware
+ coherency complete
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: cluster torn down and ready to power off
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+Last man and First man selection
+--------------------------------
+
+The CPU which performs cluster tear-down operations on the outbound side
+is commonly referred to as the "last man".
+
+The CPU which performs cluster setup on the inbound side is commonly
+referred to as the "first man".
+
+The race avoidance algorithm documented above does not provide a
+mechanism to choose which CPUs should play these roles.
+
+
+Last man:
+
+When shutting down the cluster, all the CPUs involved are initially
+executing Linux and hence coherent. Therefore, ordinary spinlocks can
+be used to select a last man safely, before the CPUs become
+non-coherent.
+
+
+First man:
+
+Because CPUs may power up asynchronously in response to external wake-up
+events, a dynamic mechanism is needed to make sure that only one CPU
+attempts to play the first man role and do the cluster-level
+initialisation: any other CPUs must wait for this to complete before
+proceeding.
+
+Cluster-level initialisation may involve actions such as configuring
+coherency controls in the bus fabric.
+
+The current implementation in mcpm_head.S uses a separate mutual exclusion
+mechanism to do this arbitration. This mechanism is documented in
+detail in vlocks.txt.
+
+
+Features and Limitations
+------------------------
+
+Implementation:
+
+ The current ARM-based implementation is split between
+ arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S (low-level inbound CPU operations) and
+ arch/arm/common/mcpm_entry.c (everything else):
+
+ __mcpm_cpu_going_down() signals the transition of a CPU to the
+ CPU_GOING_DOWN state.
+
+ __mcpm_cpu_down() signals the transition of a CPU to the CPU_DOWN
+ state.
+
+ A CPU transitions to CPU_COMING_UP and then to CPU_UP via the
+ low-level power-up code in mcpm_head.S. This could
+ involve CPU-specific setup code, but in the current
+ implementation it does not.
+
+ __mcpm_outbound_enter_critical() and __mcpm_outbound_leave_critical()
+ handle transitions from CLUSTER_UP to CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN
+ and from there to CLUSTER_DOWN or back to CLUSTER_UP (in
+ the case of an aborted cluster power-down).
+
+ These functions are more complex than the __mcpm_cpu_*()
+ functions due to the extra inter-CPU coordination which
+ is needed for safe transitions at the cluster level.
+
+ A cluster transitions from CLUSTER_DOWN back to CLUSTER_UP via
+ the low-level power-up code in mcpm_head.S. This
+ typically involves platform-specific setup code,
+ provided by the platform-specific power_up_setup
+ function registered via mcpm_sync_init.
+
+Deep topologies:
+
+ As currently described and implemented, the algorithm does not
+ support CPU topologies involving more than two levels (i.e.,
+ clusters of clusters are not supported). The algorithm could be
+ extended by replicating the cluster-level states for the
+ additional topological levels, and modifying the transition
+ rules for the intermediate (non-outermost) cluster levels.
+
+
+Colophon
+--------
+
+Originally created and documented by Dave Martin for Linaro Limited, in
+collaboration with Nicolas Pitre and Achin Gupta.
+
+Copyright (C) 2012-2013 Linaro Limited
+Distributed under the terms of Version 2 of the GNU General Public
+License, as defined in linux/COPYING.