22.01.2020 14:52, Jon Hunter пишет:
>
> On 22/01/2020 07:16, Sameer Pujar wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>>>>> +static int tegra210_i2s_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
>>>>>>>> + if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(&pdev->dev))
>>>>>>>> + tegra210_i2s_runtime_suspend(&pdev->dev);
>>>>>>> This breaks device's RPM refcounting if it was disabled in the active
>>>>>>> state. This code should be removed. At most you could warn about the
>>>>>>> unxpected RPM state here, but it shouldn't be necessary.
>>>>>> I guess this was added for safety and explicit suspend keeps clock
>>>>>> disabled.
>>>>>> Not sure if ref-counting of the device matters when runtime PM is
>>>>>> disabled and device is removed.
>>>>>> I see few drivers using this way.
>>>>> It should matter (if I'm not missing something) because RPM should
>>>>> be in
>>>>> a wrecked state once you'll try to re-load the driver's module. Likely
>>>>> that those few other drivers are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>> Once the driver is re-loaded and RPM is enabled, I don't think it
>>>> would use
>>>> the same 'dev' and the corresponding ref count. Doesn't it use the new
>>>> counters?
>>>> If RPM is not working for some reason, most likely it would be the case
>>>> for other
>>>> devices. What best driver can do is probably do a force suspend during
>>>> removal if
>>>> already not done. I would prefer to keep, since multiple drivers still
>>>> have it,
>>>> unless there is a real harm in doing so.
>>> I took a closer look and looks like the counter actually should be
>>> reset. Still I don't think that it's a good practice to make changes
>>> underneath of RPM, it may strike back.
>>
>> If RPM is broken, it probably would have been caught during device usage.
>> I will remove explicit suspend here if no any concerns from other folks.
>> Thanks.
>
> I recall that this was the preferred way of doing this from the RPM
> folks. Tegra30 I2S driver does the same and Stephen had pointed me to
> this as a reference.
> I believe that this is meant to ensure that the
> device is always powered-off regardless of it RPM is enabled or not and
> what the current state is.
Yes, it was kinda actual for the case of unavailable RPM.
Anyways, /I think/ variant like this should have been more preferred:
if (!pm_runtime_enabled(&pdev->dev))
tegra210_i2s_runtime_suspend(&pdev->dev);
else
pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> Now for Tegra210 (or actually 64-bit Tegra) RPM is always enabled and so
> we don't need to worry about the !RPM case. However, I still don't see
> the harm in this.
There is no real harm today, but:
1. I'd prefer to be very careful with RPM in general, based on
previous experience.
2. It should be a bug if device isn't RPM-suspended during
of driver's removal. Thus the real problem needs to be fixed
rather than worked around.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
