On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:37:33AM +0800, Zhenhua Huang wrote:
>
>
> On 2024/8/12 21:25, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 06:30:43PM +0800, Zhenhua Huang wrote:
> > > TBU driver has no runtime pm support now, adding pm_runtime_enable()
> > > seems to be useless. Remove it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhenhua Huang <quic_zhenhuah@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 6 ------
> > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> > > index 36c6b36ad4ff..aff2fe1fda13 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> > > @@ -566,7 +566,6 @@ static struct acpi_platform_list qcom_acpi_platlist[] = {
> > > static int qcom_smmu_tbu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > {
> > > - struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > int ret;
> > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_QCOM_DEBUG)) {
> > > @@ -575,11 +574,6 @@ static int qcom_smmu_tbu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > > - if (dev->pm_domain) {
> > > - pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> > > - pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> >
> > I assumed that this was required to avoid the TBU from being powered
> > down? If so, then I think we shall move it under the
>
> Hi Pranjal,
>
> In my sense, this was giving the TBU ability to power down when
> necessary(through pm callbacks)? While I haven't seen any RPM impl for TBU
> device.. hence having the doubt..
>
> Thanks,
> Zhenhua
Apologies for being unclear. I just meant to ask if there was a reason
to add pm_runtime_set_active & enable in the tbu probe previously? And I
*assumed* that it was to set the device state as RPM_ACTIVE to avoid it
being RPM_SUSPENDED after enabling pm_runtime.
I agree that there are no pm_runtime_suspend/resume calls within the TBU
driver. I'm just trying to understand why was pm_runtime enabled here
earlier (since it's not implemented) in order to ensure that removing it
doesn't cause further troubles?
I see Georgi added it as a part of
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240704010759.507798-1-quic_c_gdjako@xxxxxxxxxxx/
But I'm unsure why was it required to fix that bug?
>
> > previous if condition, i.e. CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_QCOM_DEBUG?
> >
> > If not, we can remove it give that the TBU would be powered ON as needed
> >
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pranjal
Thanks,
Pranjal
