On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:59:43 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 13 May 2014 12:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:16:34 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> On 13 May 2014 03:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Move the invocation of the runtime PM barrier during system suspend
> >> > (or hibernation) from __device_suspend() to device_prepare() to make
> >> > all runtime PM transitions in progress complete before executing
> >> > ->prepare() callbacks for devices.
> >> >
> >> > That will allow those callbacks to check if devices are runtime
> >> > suspended in a non-racy way.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/base/power/main.c | 31 +++++++++++++------------------
> >> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> >> > ===================================================================
> >> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c
> >> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> >> > @@ -1312,24 +1312,7 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic
> >> >
> >> > dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async);
> >> >
> >> > - if (async_error)
> >> > - goto Complete;
> >> > -
> >> > - /*
> >> > - * If a device configured to wake up the system from sleep states
> >> > - * has been suspended at run time and there's a resume request pending
> >> > - * for it, this is equivalent to the device signaling wakeup, so the
> >> > - * system suspend operation should be aborted.
> >> > - */
> >> > - if (pm_runtime_barrier(dev) && device_may_wakeup(dev))
> >> > - pm_wakeup_event(dev, 0);
> >> > -
> >> > - if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> >> > - async_error = -EBUSY;
> >> > - goto Complete;
> >> > - }
> >>
> >> I suppose you went a bit too far here!?
> >>
> >> We can still have wakeup pending at this point, and thus we should
> >> bail out, right?
> >
> > That pm_wakeup_pending() is part of the barrier handling, so ->
> >
> >> > -
> >> > - if (dev->power.syscore)
> >> > + if (async_error || dev->power.syscore)
> >> > goto Complete;
> >> >
> >> > dpm_watchdog_set(&wd, dev);
> >> > @@ -1500,6 +1483,18 @@ static int device_prepare(struct device
> >> > */
> >> > pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> >> >
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * If a device configured to wake up the system from sleep states
> >> > + * has been suspended at run time and there's a resume request pending
> >> > + * for it, this is equivalent to the device signaling wakeup, so the
> >> > + * system suspend operation should be aborted.
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (pm_runtime_barrier(dev) && device_may_wakeup(dev))
> >> > + pm_wakeup_event(dev, 0);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (pm_wakeup_pending())
> >> > + return -EBUSY;
> >> > +
> >
> > -> it is done here now.
> >
> > I don't see why it would be still necessary in __device_suspend().
>
> Can't we have wakeup configured for !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME case?
> pm_runtime_barrier() won't handle those scenarios, right?
The pm_wakeup_pending() is in effect for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME unset too.
> Similar check for pm_wakeup_pending() is done at
> __device_suspend_noirq, __device_suspend_late - I assumed it was
> because of the same reasons.
Hmm, OK. I'll leave it in __device_suspend() too, then.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
