public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in>
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:09:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201012170109.43137.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinyDE3OxKup_aqsN8HJH_r5LcwkP17OtuMRpACx@mail.gmail.com>

On Thursday, December 16, 2010, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> There seem to be some differences between the generic ops and the i2c
> and platform busses' implementations of the interaction between runtime
> PM and system sleep:
> 
>   (1) The platform bus does not implement the
>       don't-call-pm->suspend()-if pm_runtime_suspended()-returns-true
>       functionality implemented by the generic ops and i2c.
> 
>   (2) Both I2C and platform do not set the device as active when a
>       pm->resume callback exists and it succeeds.
> 
>       This seems to have been done in i2c until recently, but has been
>       removed by 753419f59e ("i2c: Fix for suspend/resume issue").  It
>       seems to me that this removal is incorrect, and instead the real
>       problem with the implementation was that it set the device as
>       active even if no resume callback existed, whereas it should only
>       do so when it exists and returns zero, like the generic ops.
> 
> Are these divergences from the generic ops to be considered as bugs?

I think so.  I'm not sure about (1), because someone may already depend on
that behavior, but (2) looks like a bug to me.

> Atleast (2) will cause devices which use UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS to have
> incorrect runtime pm state after a resume from system sleep.
> 
> If so, before I send patches to fix them: can it be assumed that only
> drivers using dev_pm_ops (and not the legacy ops of these busses) will
> need the interactions between runtime PM and system sleep as done in the
> generic ops?

Yes, you can make this assumption safely.  The drivers that don't use
dev_pm_ops can't support runtime PM at all.

> This would mean that simple busses could simply use the
> generic ops like below instead of duplicating their behaviour:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> index 6b4cc56..46117e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int i2c_device_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
>  	int ret;
> 
>  	if (pm)
> -		ret = pm->resume ? pm->resume(dev) : 0;
> +		ret = pm_generic_resume(dev);
>  	else
>  		ret = i2c_legacy_resume(dev);

Thanks,
Rafael

  reply	other threads:[~2010-12-17  0:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-12-16 18:26 platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep Rabin Vincent
2010-12-17  0:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2011-02-17 15:25   ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-18  2:48     ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-18 15:05       ` Alan Stern
2011-02-18 18:28       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-18 19:25         ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-18 20:20           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-18 20:27             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-18 22:16               ` Mark Brown
2011-02-19  7:24               ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-19  9:54               ` Linus Walleij
2011-02-19 10:00                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-19 10:16                   ` Linus Walleij
2010-12-17 12:54 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-17 13:25   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-17 13:34     ` Mark Brown
2010-12-17 13:49       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-17 14:24         ` Mark Brown
2010-12-17 23:01           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-18  1:04             ` Mark Brown
2010-12-18 12:54               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-18 13:20                 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-18 14:59                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-20 15:00                     ` Mark Brown
2010-12-20 21:13                       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-21 23:51                         ` Mark Brown
2010-12-22  0:35                           ` 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=201012170109.43137.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=rabin@rab.in \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /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