From: Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
"moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER
MANAGEM..." <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
mkumard@nvidia.com, rlokhande@nvidia.com, sharadg@nvidia.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ALSA: hda/tegra: enable clock during probe
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:51:34 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ab7dbd95-6852-12e1-5fcb-8372c73bfdf6@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hezV7et3VgD7yHa8MLiP0z3YtJ9stwSQL54-tyz_VXkQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/31/2019 5:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:59 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:46:54 +0100,
>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:21 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:05:30 +0100,
>>>> Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:40:42PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>> [cut]
>>>
>>>>>> If I understand correctly the code, the pm domain is already activated
>>>>>> at calling driver's probe callback.
>>>>> As far as I can tell, the domain will also be powered off again after
>>>>> probe finished, unless the device grabs a runtime PM reference. This is
>>>>> what happens via the dev->pm_domain->sync() call after successful probe
>>>>> of a driver.
>>>> Ah, a good point. This can be a problem with a probe work like this
>>>> case.
Are you suggesting, whether runtime PM is enabled/disabled, after
successful probe the
domain would be powered off?
For CONFIG_PM enabled case, probe() can call get_sync() and put_sync()
can be in probe_work.
How this needs to be handled for CONFG_PM disabled case? (just calling
clock_enable() may
not be sufficient as per previous comments)
>>>>> It seems to me like it's not a very well defined case what to do when a
>>>>> device needs to be powered up but runtime PM is not enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding Rafael and linux-pm, maybe they can provide some guidance on what
>>>>> to do in these situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarize, what we're debating here is how to handle powering up a
>>>>> device if the pm_runtime infrastructure doesn't take care of it. Jon's
>>>>> proposal here was, and we use this elsewhere, to do something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>>>>> if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) {
>>>>> err = foo_runtime_resume(dev);
>>>>> if (err < 0)
>>>>> goto fail;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> So basically when runtime PM is not available, we explicitly "resume"
>>>>> the device to power it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me like that's a fairly common problem, so I'm wondering if
>>>>> there's something that the runtime PM core could do to help with this.
>>>>> Or perhaps there's already a way to achieve this that we're all
>>>>> overlooking?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafael, any suggestions?
>>>> If any, a common helper would be appreciated, indeed.
>>> I'm not sure that I understand the problem correctly, so let me
>>> restate it the way I understand it.
>>>
>>> What we're talking about is a driver ->probe() callback. Runtime PM
>>> is disabled initially and the device is off. It needs to be powered
>>> up, but the way to do that depends on some configuration of the board
>>> etc., so ideally
>>>
>>> pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>>> ret = pm_runtime_resume(dev);
>>>
>>> should just work, but the question is what to do if runtime PM doesn't
>>> work as expected. That is, CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is unset? Or something
>>> else?
>> Yes, the question is how to write the code for both with and without
>> CONFIG_PM (or CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME).
> This basically is about setup, because after that point all should
> just work in both cases.
>
> Personally, I would do
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM)) {
> do setup based on pm-runtime
> } else {
> do manual setup
> }
do we really need config check here?
The debate was, whether to call hda_tegra_runtime_resume() or
hda_tegra_enable_clocks() unconditionally here.
It would take care of both CONFIG_PM enabled/disabled cases. Then enable
runtime PM.
>> Right now, we have a code like below, pushing the initialization in an
>> async work and let the probe returning quickly.
>>
>> hda_tegra_probe() {
>> ....
> So why don't you do
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM)) {
> do manual clock setup
> }
>
> here?
>
>> pm_runtime_enable();
>> schedule_work();
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> hda_tegra_probe_work() {
>> pm_runtime_get_sync();
>> ....
>> pm_runtime_put_sync();
>> }
>>
>> Then it truned outhis code lacks of the clock initialization when
>> runtime PM isn't enabled. Normally it's done via runtime resume
>>
>> hda_tegra_runtime_resume() {
>> hda_tegra_enable_clocks();
>> ....
>> }
>>
>> And now the question is what is the standard idiom in such a case.
>>
>> IMO, calling pm_runtime_resume() inside the probe function looks
>> weird, and my preference was to initialize the clocks explicitly, then
>> enable runtime PM. But if using pm_runtime_resume() in the proc
>> should be seen as a standard procedure, I'm fine with that.
I think reference here is, whether calling hda_tegra_runtime_resume() in
probe() is
a standard procedure or not.
> Well, people do pm_runtime_resume() in ->probe() too, but
> pm_runtime_resume() returns 1 for CONFIG_PM unset, so that won't give
> you what you want anyway. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-31 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-25 11:06 [PATCH v2] ALSA: hda/tegra: enable clock during probe Sameer Pujar
2019-01-25 11:42 ` Jon Hunter
2019-01-25 12:19 ` Sameer Pujar
2019-01-25 13:15 ` Jon Hunter
2019-01-30 12:45 ` Jon Hunter
2019-01-30 16:40 ` Takashi Iwai
2019-01-31 9:36 ` Sameer Pujar
2019-01-31 11:05 ` Thierry Reding
2019-01-31 11:21 ` Takashi Iwai
2019-01-31 11:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-01-31 11:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-01-31 11:59 ` Takashi Iwai
2019-01-31 12:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-01-31 14:21 ` Sameer Pujar [this message]
2019-01-31 14:30 ` Thierry Reding
2019-01-31 23:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-04 8:16 ` Sameer Pujar
2019-02-04 8:51 ` Thierry Reding
2019-02-04 10:04 ` Jon Hunter
2019-02-04 10:13 ` Takashi Iwai
2019-02-05 11:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-04 8:45 ` Thierry Reding
2019-02-04 9:53 ` Jon Hunter
2019-02-04 11:05 ` Thierry Reding
2019-02-04 12:03 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-02-04 14:00 ` Thierry Reding
2019-02-04 14:28 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-02-04 16:17 ` Thierry Reding
2019-02-04 18:46 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-02-05 11:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=ab7dbd95-6852-12e1-5fcb-8372c73bfdf6@nvidia.com \
--to=spujar@nvidia.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkumard@nvidia.com \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rlokhande@nvidia.com \
--cc=sharadg@nvidia.com \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
/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