On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:38 PM Furquan Shaikh <furquan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:29 AM Furquan Shaikh <furquan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 9:51 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 6:43 PM Furquan Shaikh <furquan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:39 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:19 PM Furquan Shaikh <furquan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On x86 Chromebooks, we have observed this issue for a long time now - > > > > > > when the system is powered off or rebooted, ACPI PM is not invoked and > > > > > > this results in PowerResource _OFF methods not being invoked for any > > > > > > of the devices. The _OFF methods are invoked correctly in case of > > > > > > suspend-to-idle (S0ix) and suspend-to-memory(S3). However, they do not > > > > > > get invoked when `poweroff` or `reboot` are triggered. > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the differences between suspend, hibernate and shutdown paths > > > > > > in Linux kernel is that the shutdown path does not use the typical > > > > > > device PM phases (prepare, freeze/suspend, poweroff) as used by > > > > > > suspend/hibernate. Instead the shutdown path makes use of > > > > > > .shutdown_pre() and .shutdown() callbacks. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, .shutdown() has been around for a long time > > > > > > and existed even before the PM callbacks were added. Thus, > > > > > > pm->poweroff() and .shutdown() are supposed to be analogous and > > > > > > consistent in the behavior. > > > > > > > > > > Well, not quite. > > > > > > > > > > ->shutdown() is expected to be a lightweight operation also suitable > > > > > for kexec() and similar situations where ->poweroff() may not work. > > > > > > > > > > > This is why runtime PM is disallowed by > > > > > > device_shutdown() before it calls .shutdown() (i.e. to keep behavior > > > > > > consistent for both paths). However, in practice, there are > > > > > > differences in behavior for the pm->poweroff() and .shutdown() paths > > > > > > since the shutdown path does not execute any PM domain operations. > > > > > > > > > > That's correct. > > > > > > > > > > > Because of this difference in behavior, shutdown path never invokes > > > > > > ACPI PM and thus the ACPI PowerResources are not turned off when the > > > > > > system is rebooted or powered off (sleep S5). On Chromebooks, it is > > > > > > critical to run the _OFF methods for poweroff/reboot in order to > > > > > > ensure that the device power off sequencing requirements are met. > > > > > > Currently, these requirements are violated which impact the > > > > > > reliability of devices over the lifetime of the platform. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a few ways in which this can be addressed: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Similar to the case of hibernation, a new > > > > > > PMSG_POWEROFF/PM_EVENT_POWEROFF can be introduced to invoke device > > > > > > power management phases using `dpm_suspend_start(PMSG_POWEROFF)` and > > > > > > `dpm_suspend_end(PMSG_POWEROFF)`. However, as the shutdown path uses > > > > > > the class/bus/driver .shutdown() callbacks, adding dpm phases for > > > > > > poweroff complicates the order of operations. If the dpm phases are > > > > > > run before .shutdown() callbacks, then it will result in the callbacks > > > > > > accessing devices after they are powered off. If the .shutdown() > > > > > > callbacks are run before dpm phases, then the pm->poweroff() calls are > > > > > > made after the device shutdown is done. Since .shutdown() and > > > > > > pm->poweroff() are supposed to be analogous, having both calls in the > > > > > > shutdown path is not only redundant but also results in incorrect > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Another option is to update device_shutdown() to make > > > > > > pm_domain.poweroff calls after the class/bus/driver .shutdown() is > > > > > > done. However, this suffers from the same problem as #1 above i.e. it > > > > > > is redundant and creates conflicting order of operations. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Third possible solution is to detach the device from the PM domain > > > > > > after it is shutdown. Currently, device drivers perform a detach > > > > > > operation only when the device is removed. However, in case of > > > > > > poweroff/reboot as the device is already shutdown, detaching PM domain > > > > > > will give it the opportunity to ensure that any power resources are > > > > > > correctly turned off before the system shuts down. > > > > > > > > > > 4. Make Chromebooks call something like hibernation_platform_enter() > > > > > on S5 entries (including reboot). > > > > > > > > Actually, Chromebooks do not support S4 and hence CONFIG_HIBERNATION. > > > > > > This doesn't matter. The ->poweroff callbacks can still be used by > > > them (of course, that part of the current hibernation support code > > > needs to be put under a more general Kconfig option for that, but this > > > is a technical detail). > > > > Ah I see what you are saying. Just to be sure I understand this > > correctly. Is this what you are thinking: > > 1. Extract hibernation_platform_enter() and any other helpers required > > to trigger the PM phases for shutdown into a separate unit controlled > > by a more general Kconfig. Yes in general, but maybe not hibernation_platform_enter() as a whole, because it contains hibernation-specific code. > > 2. Add a new Kconfig that enables support for performing PM phases > > during the poweroff/reboot phases. Yes. > > 3. Based on this new Kconfig selection, LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_RESTART, > > LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT, LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_POWER_OFF will be updated to > > use the new paths instead of the current lightweight calls. Maybe not always, but depending on the platform or similar. > I am currently exploring this approach to see how the components need > to be organized to make use of hibernation_platform_enter by more than > just the hibernation path. Please let me know if the above summary > doesn't align with your suggestion. > > Meanwhile, I have also sent out a formal patch for detaching the PM > domain: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20201201213019.1558738-1-furquan@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > to ensure that this addresses the issue with ACPI PM domain. OK, so let's see what the response to it will be. > I will continue working on the above suggestion as well, but it might > take some time for me to get a good understanding of the current paths > and to cleanly implement the support for PM phases during > poweroff/reboot cases. Sure, please take your time! Thanks a lot for working on this!
