public inbox for linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
Cc: mythripk@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, andy.green@linaro.org,
	n-dechesne@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAPDSS: Check if RPM enabled before trying to change state
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:49:21 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1340632161.3395.100.camel@deskari> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJe_ZhetdEwrgDEfV9rLHU1_fmb3O+954hCKcoENBgQ6Bi6BXQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3936 bytes --]

On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:01 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 25 June 2012 18:11, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 17:57 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> >> On 25 June 2012 15:00, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > The driver needs to enable the HW and the call to pm_runtime_get() is
> >> > skipped. Won't this lead to crash as the DSS registers are accessed
> >> > without the HW in enabled state?
> >> >
> >> Hmm...  how does the extant code in hdmi driver ensures DSS is up and running ?
> >> While it does sound important even to my limited knowledge of OMAPDSS,
> >> I see rpm of HDMI, VENC and RFBI only dependent on DISPC, not DSS.
> >
> > DSS device is parent to all the DSS subdevices. So when a subdevice is
> > enabled, DSS device is enabled first.
> >
> > But anyway, I wasn't referring to the DSS part of OMAPDSS, but to
> > omapdss generally. If we do this:
> >
> > /* this is skipped, if runtime PM is disabled */
> > dispc_runtime_get();
> >
> I hope you do realize that there is difference between "PM is disabled
> on a device"
> and "the device is in some low-power state".   pm_runtime_enabled()
> checks for the former.
> So under this light...
> 
> > /* this accesses a register, but the HW is disabled? */
> > dispc_read_reg(FOO);
> >
> .... the H/W is already always enabled if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is not defined.
> 
> If CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is indeed defined,  pm_runtime_enabled() will
> always return true after pm_runtime_enable()  unless someone disables
> it explicitly - omapdss or the RPM stack(during suspend/resume).
> OMAPDSS never does so in the lifetime of a driver.  So the only period
> in which pm_runtime_enabled() returns false, is when the platform is
> suspending, suspended or resuming.

Right. So what happens in my example above?

Normally if the driver does dispc_runtime_get() and dispc_read_reg(),
the first call will enable the HW so the reg read works. 

But if the pm_runtime is disabled, say, during system suspend, with your
patch dispc_runtime_get() will just return 0 without doing anything, and
the dispc_read_reg() will crash because the HW is disabled (because
nobody enabled it).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't quite understand how this
works.

> >> > And what happens if the pm_runtime_get() call is skipped, but pm_runtime_put() is not?
> >> >
> >> Not sure in what newly introduced scenario by this patch, because
> >> get/put both check for pm_enabled before proceeding. Am I overlooking
> >> something?
> >
> > Currently (for example) dispc_runtime_get/put call
> > pm_runtime_get/put_sync. When somebody uses dispc_runtime_get, the same
> > somebody knows it needs to call dispc_runtime_put later.
> >
> > Now, what happens if dispc_runtime_get is called when runtime PM is
> > disabled (i.e. pm_runtime_get_sync is skipped), but runtime PM is
> > enabled later when that somebody calls dispc_runtime_put (i.e.
> > pm_runtime_put_sync is _not_ skipped)?
> >
> As I said, for omapdss, PM is disabled (not device deactivated) only
> during rpm suspend/resume.
> And it should be no different than any lock protected section
> preempted by suspend-resume before reaching its end.

I'm not sure if I understand... If the driver does dispc_runtime_get()
while the PM is disabled, say, during system resume, dispc_runtime_get()
will do nothing and return 0. The driver thinks it succeeded, and will
call dispc_runtime_put() later.

Calling the dispc_runtime_put() could happen very soon, while runtime PM
is still disabled, in which case everything works fine. But there's no
rule to say dispc_runtime_put() has to be called very soon after
dispc_runtime_get(). The driver might as well call put later, when
runtime PM is enabled.

This would end up with a pm_runtime_put call without a matching
pm_runtime_get call.

 Tomi


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-25 13:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-23  8:06 [PATCH] OMAPDSS: Check if RPM enabled before trying to change state jaswinder.singh
2012-06-25  6:20 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-25  8:49   ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-25  9:30     ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-25 12:27       ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-25 12:41         ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-25 13:31           ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-25 13:49             ` Tomi Valkeinen [this message]
2012-06-25 17:06               ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-26  7:19                 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-26  8:32                   ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-26  8:40                     ` Andy Green
2012-06-26  9:07                     ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-26  9:57                       ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-26 12:03                         ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-26 14:49                           ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-26 15:08                             ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-26 15:09                               ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-26 15:11                                 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-26 17:01                                   ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-26 18:44                                     ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-27  4:42                                       ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-27  5:58                                         ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-27  7:41                                           ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-27  8:13                                             ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-27 14:53                                               ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-28  6:41                                                 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-28  7:46                                                   ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-28  7:58                                                     ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-25 12:05   ` Grazvydas Ignotas
2012-06-25 12:30     ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-25 12:42       ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-06-25 12:50         ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-26  4:51           ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-06-26 13:02             ` Grazvydas Ignotas
2012-06-26 14:34               ` Alan Stern
2012-06-26 15:01                 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-26 15:11                   ` Alan Stern
2012-06-25 12:33     ` Jassi Brar

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=1340632161.3395.100.camel@deskari \
    --to=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
    --cc=andy.green@linaro.org \
    --cc=jaswinder.singh@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mythripk@ti.com \
    --cc=n-dechesne@ti.com \
    /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