linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk (Ben Dooks)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] sh_eth: pm_runtime should not need null operations
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:46:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <532C4298.2050200@codethink.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVhUwX0DO2+TBhG31HB2sx3_XRW3xPfZ+wH2d8b=RywLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 21/03/14 14:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> (dropping netdev and davem, adding Felipe, Kevin, linux-pm, and
> linux-arm-kernel)
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/03/14 11:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The driver has a no-op for the pm_runtime callbacks but
>>>> the pm_runtime core should correctly ignore drivers without
>>>> any pm_rumtime callback ops.
>>>
>>> The pm_runtime core doesn't ignore non-existing runtime_{suspend,resume}
>>> callbacks, it turns them into a failure withv -ENOSYS.
>>> Only non-existing runtime_idle callbacks are ignored.
>>
>> I've added Rafael Wysocki as he may be able to add better
>> feedback to this issue.
>>
>> [snip rpm_susend code block]
>>
>> I got very confused here. The clock_ops sets dev->pm_domain
>> which over-rides the use of the dev->driver->pm entry as the
>> primary pm for the device. The code above the bit you snipped
>> does a ladder looking for the pm_runtime entry it calls and
>> would stop at finding dev->pm_domain as so:
>>
>> from drivers/base/power/runtime.c:
>>      495         if (dev->pm_domain)
>>      496                 callback = dev->pm_domain->ops.runtime_suspend;
>>   ...
>>      502                 callback = dev->bus->pm->runtime_suspend;
>>      503         else
>>      504                 callback = NULL;
>>
>>
>> So for drivers on shmobile with drivers/sh/pm_runtime.c enabled
>> we would never call the drivers' entry as the ops that this code
>> introduces just calls the pm_clk calls and does not send the
>> events on.
>
> Yes, that's also my understanding.
>
> Commit 4d27e9dcff00a6425d779b065ec8892e4f391661 ("PM: Make
> power domain callbacks take precedence over subsystem ones") explains
> the rationale behind this.
>
> Now, this doesn't prevent your power domain from delegating to other
> callbacks...
>
>> If we send the events on, then we would use pm_generic_runtime_suspend()
>> to send it. This call treats the lack of runtime_pm driver entry as a
>> do nothing and return 0 which means in this case the code in sh_eth
>> is not necessary to have any pm_runtime functions.
>
> If the power domain just calls pm_generic_runtime_suspend(), it will only
> consider the driver-specific callback, bypassing type, class, and
> bus-specific callbacks.
>
> So should the power domain delegate it further using a similar ladder
> strategy like RPM_GET_CALLBACK() at the core pm level, i.e.
> try type/class/bus/driver?
> And type should delegate to class/bus/driver, class to bus/driver, bus to
> driver?
>
>> This means depending on if we have a pm_domain in the path we get
>> different treatment of NULL runtime pm ops pointer. I am not sure
>> how to handle this, as IIRC a number of other drivers for Renesas
>> currently assume that the NULL case is going to be fine for them.
>>
>> Changing pm_generic_runtime_suspend() to return ENOSYS would end
>> up breaking davinci and probably a number of other platforms.
>>
>> So questions:
>>
>> - Should rpm_suspend() ignore the lack of pm_runtime operations?
>> - Do we need to add a generic `ignore pm runtime callback`
>> - Are any other shmobile drivers similarly affected?
>
> The code indeed looks a bit like a mix of:
>    - Lack of callback means it's safe to suspend,
>    - Lack of callback means it's not safe to suspend.

I thought historically NULL tended to mean it did not care about
this.

The whole thing is giving me a headache as I would expect the
suspend to start with device and then work down the layers and
resume to do the opposite. However currently rpm_resume will also
start at the dev->pm_domain.

Should the rpm_resume start with the dev->bus->pm and then work
its way up to the dev->driver->pm callback? If so then the current
davinci code is also going to be wrong...

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-21 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1395396913-24354-1-git-send-email-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
     [not found] ` <CAMuHMdWO-kNdWT_AxzAmCTrx3NerWpTG+auFNZTcL5hsbN+++A@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]   ` <532C1B13.7000805@codethink.co.uk>
2014-03-21 13:24     ` [PATCH] sh_eth: pm_runtime should not need null operations Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-03-21 13:46       ` Ben Dooks [this message]
2014-03-24 18:35         ` Geert Uytterhoeven

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=532C4298.2050200@codethink.co.uk \
    --to=ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).