On 23 October 2014 16:37, Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On 10/23/2014 11:11 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 22 October 2014 17:44, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 22 October 2014 17:09, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +void keystone_pm_domain_attach_dev(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> + struct clk *clk;
>>>>>>>>> int ret;
>>>>>>>>> + int i = 0;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - ret = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev);
>>>>>>>>> - if (ret)
>>>>>>>>> - return ret;
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> - ret = pm_clk_suspend(dev);
>>>>>>>>> + ret = pm_clk_create(dev);
>>>>>>>>> if (ret) {
>>>>>>>>> - pm_generic_runtime_resume(dev);
>>>>>>>>> - return ret;
>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_create failed %d\n", ret);
>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + while ((clk = of_clk_get(dev->of_node, i++)) && !IS_ERR(clk)) {
>>>>>>>>> + ret = pm_clk_add_clk(dev, clk);
>>>>>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_add_clk failed %d\n", ret);
>>>>>>>>> + goto clk_err;
>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>>>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)) {
>>>>>>>> Can we not okkup two seperate callbacks instead of above check ?
>>>>>>>> I don't like this CONFIG check here. Its slightly better version of
>>>>>>>> ifdef in middle of the code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've found more-less similar comment on patch
>>>>>>> "Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] power-domain: add power domain drivers for Rockchip platform"
>>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/17/257
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, Would you like me to create patch which will enable clocks in pm_clk_add/_clk()
>>>>>>> in case !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am wondering whether we actually should/could do this, no matter of
>>>>>> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typically, for configurations that uses CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, the PM
>>>>>> clocks through pm_clk_suspend(), will be gated once the device becomes
>>>>>> runtime PM suspended. Right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing it unconditionally means we'll have lots of unneeded clocks running
>>>>> for a short while.
>>>
>>>> As long as the pm_clk_add() is being invoked from the ->attach_dev()
>>>> callback, we are in the probe path. Certainly we would like to have
>>>> clocks enabled while probing, don't you think?
>>>>
>>>> If we wouldn't enable the clocks for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, when will
>>>> those be enabled?
>>>
>>> They will be enabled when the driver does
>>>
>>> pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>>> pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>>>
>>> in its .probe() method.
>>
>> No! This doesn't work for drivers which have used
>> pm_runtime_set_active() prior pm_runtime_enable().
>
> Sorry, but some misunderstanding is here:
> 1) If some code call pm_runtime_set_active() it has to ensure
> that all PM resources switched to ON state. All! So, it will
> be ok to call enable & get after that - these functions will only
> adjust counters.
Correct.
This is also the key problem with your approach. You requires a
pm_runtime_get_sync() to trigger the runtime PM resume callbacks to be
invoked. That's a fragile design.
The solution that I propose is to "manually" enable your PM clks
during the probe sequence. We can do that as a part of pm_clk_add() or
we invoke pm_clk_resume() separately, but more important no matter of
CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
The driver could then be responsible to invoke pm_runtime_set_active()
to reflect that all runtime PM resources are enabled.
>
> 2) if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME=n the pm_runtime_set_active() will
> be empty (see pm_runtime.h) and you can't relay on it.
>
> 3) if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME=n the pm_runtime_enable/disable() will
> be empty - and disable_depth == 1 all the time.
>
> In my case, the combination of generic PD and PM clock framework
> will do everything I need for both cases CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME=y/n.
>
> PM domain attach_dev/detach_dev callbacks - will fill PM resources
> and enable them if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME=n.
>
> if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME - PM resources will be enabled/disabled
> by Runtime PM through .start()/.stop() callbacks.
>
> And seems suspend/resume will work too - can't try it now, but it
> should work, because .start()/.stop() callbacks have to be called
> from pm_genpd_suspend_noirq.
>
>
>>
>> That should also be a common good practice for most drivers, otherwise
>> they wouldn’t work unless CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is enabled.
>>
>> Please have a look at the following patchset, which is fixing up one
>> driver to behave better.
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=141327095713390&w=2
>
> It always was (and seems will) a big challenge to support both
> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME=y and system suspend in drivers ;), especially if driver was
> initially created using Runtime PM centric approach.
>
> But, for the case CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME + !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME + suspend...
> It will be painful :..((
I agree to that this _has_ been an issue. It also remarkable that
people have been just accepting that for so long.
Now, we have added the pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume() helpers.
Those will help to solve these cases.
>
>
> For example your patches (may be I'm not fully understand your problem,
> so here are just comments to code):
> patch 3:
> - I think you can do smth like this in probe
> ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto err_m2m;
This is wrong!
1) It will break the driver for !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
2) It would also be broken for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME for the scenario
where a bus also handles runtime PM resources.
Typically from the bus' ->probe() this is done:
pm_runtime_get_noresume()
pm_runtime_set_active()
As stated earlier, we shouldn't require the runtime PM resume callback
to be invoked just because a pm_runtime_get_sync(). It's fragile.
> +
> + if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) {
> + gsc_runtime_resume(dev);
> + }
>
> - and similar thing in remove, before pm_runtime_disable
>
> patch 5 - pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() will not take into
> account or change Runtime PM state of the device if !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
> runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDED always in this case!
> So, there may be some side-effects.
pm_runtime_status_suspended() will always return false for !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
There are no side effects as long as you have defined your runtime PM
callbacks within CONFIG_PM. SET_PM_RUNTIME_PM_OPS() also helps out
here.
>
> patch 7 - you can't call clk_prepare/unprepare from Runtime PM
> callbacks, because they aren't atomic
If the runtime PM callbacks are invoked in atomic context, the driver
needs to tell the runtime PM core about it. That's done through,
pm_runtime_irq_safe(), which it doesn't.
>
> Oh, You definitely will be enjoyed ;)
Likely you to. :-)
Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
