Re: use of pm_runtime_disable() from driver probe?

Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-07-10T19:14:04Z

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > Anyway, you can't force the device into a low-power state using
> > > > runtime PM after a failing probe, at least in general.
> > >
> > > Well, using PM domains, that's exactly what can happen if the driver
> > > doesn't call pm_runtime_disable() because the _put_sync() in the driver
> > > core will trigger the PM domain callbacks.
> >
> > OK, so if you have PM domains, then the case is equivalent to having a bus
> > type with its own runtime PM callbacks. In that case, if .probe() fails,
> > it obviously doesn't mean that the device shouldn't be power managed,
> > so the driver shouldn't call pm_runtime_disable().
> >
> > Generally, if runtime PM was enabled for a device before .probe() has been
> > called, the driver shouldn't disable it in .probe() whatever the reason,
> > because it may not have enough information for deciding whether or not
> > runtime PM should be disabled.
>
> So if the PM domain code called pm_runtime_enable() then the domain
> code should be responsible for calling pm_runtime_disable() too,
> presumably after putting the device back into a low-power state. I'm
> not sure when that would occur, however. Immediately after registering
> the device, if no driver is bound?
>
> In the case where the probe routine called pm_runtime_enable(), you're
> stuck. The probe routine _has_ to call pm_runtime_disable() when a
> failure occurs, to keep the disable count balanced.

Yes, I has just been thinking about that.

If .probe() enabled runtime PM and called pm_runtime_get_sync() (or _resume),
it can't clean up properly in case of an error, because its
pm_runtime_put_sync() (or _suspend) won't be effective and you're right that
it has to call pm_runtime_disable().

So, we don't handle this particular case correctly.

I'm not sure what the solution should be, though. We could remove the
runtime PM operations around really_probe(), but then there may be drivers
assuming that the core will call pm_runtime_put_sync() after .probe()
has returned.

Thanks,
Rafael