Re: [PATCH v13 13/35] drm/tegra: gr2d: Support generic power domain and runtime PM

Ulf Hansson
2021-10-04T11:01:44Z

On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 at 21:00, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 01.10.2021 17:55, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 at 16:29, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 01.10.2021 16:39, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> >>> On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 00:42, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Add runtime power management and support generic power domains.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tested-by: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> # Ouya T30
> >>>> Tested-by: Paul Fertser <fercerpav@gmail.com> # PAZ00 T20
> >>>> Tested-by: Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@gmail.com> # PAZ00 T20 and TK1 T124
> >>>> Tested-by: Matt Merhar <mattmerhar@protonmail.com> # Ouya T30
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gr2d.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> static int gr2d_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>> @@ -259,15 +312,101 @@ static int gr2d_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>> return err;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> + pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
> >>>> + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> >>>
> >>> There is no guarantee that the ->runtime_suspend() has been invoked
> >>> here, which means that clock may be left prepared/enabled beyond this
> >>> point.
> >>>
> >>> I suggest you call pm_runtime_force_suspend(), instead of
> >>> pm_runtime_disable(), to make sure that gets done.
> >>
> >> The pm_runtime_disable() performs the final synchronization, please see [1].
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.15-rc3/source/drivers/base/power/runtime.c#L1412
> >
> > pm_runtime_disable() end up calling _pm_runtime_barrier(), which calls
> > cancel_work_sync() if dev->power.request_pending has been set.
> >
> > If the work that was punted to the pm_wq in rpm_idle() has not been
> > started yet, we end up just canceling it. In other words, there are no
> > guarantees it runs to completion.
>
> You're right. Although, in a case of this particular patch, the syncing
> is actually implicitly done by pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend().
>
> But for drivers which don't use auto-suspend, there is no sync. This
> looks like a disaster, it's a very common pattern for drivers to
> 'put+disable'.
>
> > Moreover, use space may have bumped the usage count via sysfs for the
> > device (pm_runtime_forbid()) to keep the device runtime resumed.
>
> Right, this is also a disaster in a case of driver removal.
>
> >> Calling pm_runtime_force_suspend() isn't correct because each 'enable'
> >> must have the corresponding 'disable'. Hence there is no problem here.
> >
> > pm_runtime_force_suspend() calls pm_runtime_disable(), so I think that
> > should be fine. No?
>
> [adding Rafael]
>
> Rafael, could you please explain how drivers are supposed to properly
> suspend and disable RPM to cut off power and reset state that was
> altered by the driver's resume callback? What we're missing? Is Ulf's
> suggestion acceptable?
>
> The RPM state of a device is getting reset on driver's removal, hence
> all refcounts that were bumped by the rpm-resume callback of the device
> driver will be screwed up if device is kept resumed after removal. I
> just verified that it's true in practice.

Note that, what makes the Tegra drivers a bit special is that they are
always built with CONFIG_PM being set (selected from the "SoC"
Kconfig).

Therefore, pm_runtime_force_suspend() can work for some of these
cases. Using this, would potentially avoid the driver from having to
runtime resume the device in ->remove(), according to the below
generic sequence, which is used in many drivers.

pm_runtime_get_sync()
clk_disable_unprepare() (+ additional things to turn off the device)
pm_runtime_disable()
pm_runtime_put_noidle()

Kind regards
Uffe