23.01.2020 12:22, Sameer Pujar пишет:
>
>
> On 1/22/2020 9:57 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> 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);
>
> I think it looks to be similar to what is there already.
>
> pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); // it would turn out to be a dummy call
> if !RPM
> if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(&pdev->dev)) // it is true always if !RPM
> tegra210_i2s_runtime_suspend(&pdev->dev);
Maybe this is fine for !RPM, but not really fine in a case of enabled
RPM. Device could be in resumed state after pm_runtime_disable() if it
wasn't suspended before the disabling.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
