On Mon, Oct 24 2016 at 15:15 -0600, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2016 10:16:05 AM Lina Iyer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22 2016 at 18:19 -0600, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>On Friday, October 21, 2016 03:52:55 PM Lina Iyer wrote:
>> Update documentation to reflect the changes made to support IRQ safe PM
>> domains.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes since v3:
>> - Moved para to the end of the section
>> - Added clause for all IRQ safe devices in a domain
>> - Cleanup explanation of nested domains
>> ---
>> Documentation/power/devices.txt | 11 ++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/power/devices.txt b/Documentation/power/devices.txt
>> index 8ba6625..9218ce6 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/power/devices.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/power/devices.txt
>> @@ -607,7 +607,9 @@ individually. Instead, a set of devices sharing a power resource can be put
>> into a low-power state together at the same time by turning off the shared
>> power resource. Of course, they also need to be put into the full-power state
>> together, by turning the shared power resource on. A set of devices with this
>> -property is often referred to as a power domain.
>> +property is often referred to as a power domain. A power domain may also be
>> +nested inside another power domain. The nested domain is referred to as the
>> +sub-domain of the parent domain.
>>
>> Support for power domains is provided through the pm_domain field of struct
>> device. This field is a pointer to an object of type struct dev_pm_domain,
>> @@ -629,6 +631,13 @@ support for power domains into subsystem-level callbacks, for example by
>> modifying the platform bus type. Other platforms need not implement it or take
>> it into account in any way.
>>
>> +Devices and PM domains may be defined as IRQ-safe, if they can be powered
>> +on/off even when the IRQs are disabled.
>
>What IRQ-safe means for devices is that their runtime PM callbacks may be
>invoked with interrupts disabled on the local CPU. I guess the meaning of
>IRQ-safe for PM domains is analogous, but the above isn't precise enough to me.
>
>> An IRQ-safe device in a domain will
>> +disallow power management on the domain, unless the domain is also defined as
>> +IRQ-safe. In other words, a domain containing all IRQ-safe devices must also
>> +be defined as IRQ-safe. Another restriction this framework imposes on the
>> +parent domain of an IRQ-safe domain is that the parent domain must also be
>> +defined as IRQ-safe.
>
>What about this:
>
>"Devices may be defined as IRQ-safe which indicates to the PM core that their
>runtime PM callbacks may be invoked with disabled interrupts (see
>Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt for more information). If an IRQ-safe
>device belongs to a PM domain, the runtime PM of the domain will be disallowed,
>unless the domain itself is defined as IRQ-safe. However, a PM domain can only
>be defined as IRQ-safe if all of the devices in it are IRQ-safe.
>
This is correct. But the last line may need a bit of modification. If
all devices in a PM domain are IRQ-safe and the domain is NOT, then it
it is a valid combination just that the domain would never do runtime
PM.
That doesn't contradict the last sentence of mine above. I guess what you mean
is that having a non-IRQ-safe device in an IRQ-safe domain is a valid
configuration. I wonder how it works then. :-)
In any case, what about changing that sentence to something like:
"However, it only makes sense to define a PM domain as IRQ-safe if all devices
in it are IRQ-safe."
That's precise. I will add your para instead of mine to the
documentation.
Thanks,
Lina
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
