Hi Robin, On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:52 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:22 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Hi Tomasz, > No problem. Thanks for looking back at it. > > Hi Robin, > If you are fine with this series, then can you please consider giving > Reviewed-by, so that we are certain that this series will go in the next merge > window. > Thanks Gentle ping. You ack will be very helpful in letting Will pull this series for 4.20. Thanks. Best regards Vivek -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
