On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:38 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Tomasz, > > > On 9/7/2018 2:46 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Vivek, > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:46 PM Vivek Gautam > > <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks > >> gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without > >> the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those places > >> separately. > >> Global locks are also initialized before enabling runtime pm as the > >> runtime_resume() calls device_reset() which does tlb_sync_global() > >> that ultimately requires locks to be initialized. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> [vivek: Cleanup pm runtime calls] > >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Tested-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > [snip] > >> @@ -2215,10 +2281,17 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> if (!bitmap_empty(smmu->context_map, ARM_SMMU_MAX_CBS)) > >> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "removing device with active domains!\n"); > >> > >> + arm_smmu_rpm_get(smmu); > >> /* Turn the thing off */ > >> writel(sCR0_CLIENTPD, ARM_SMMU_GR0_NS(smmu) + ARM_SMMU_GR0_sCR0); > >> + arm_smmu_rpm_put(smmu); > >> + > >> + if (pm_runtime_enabled(smmu->dev)) > >> + pm_runtime_force_suspend(smmu->dev); > >> + else > >> + clk_bulk_disable(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); > >> > >> - clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); > >> + clk_bulk_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); > > Aren't we missing pm_runtime_disable() here? We'll have the enable > > count unbalanced if the driver is removed and probed again. > > pm_runtime_force_suspend() does a pm_runtime_disable() also if i am not > wrong. > And, as mentioned in a previous thread [1], we were seeing a warning > which we avoided > by keeping force_suspend(). > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/8/124 I see, thanks. I didn't realize that pm_runtime_force_suspend() already disables runtime PM indeed. Sorry for the noise. Best regards, Tomasz
