On 20/08/18 10:31, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi Robin, On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This series provides the support for turning on the arm-smmu's clocks/power domains using runtime pm. This is done using device links between smmu and client devices. The device link framework keeps the two devices in correct order for power-cycling across runtime PM or across system-wide PM. With addition of a new device link flag DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_SUPPLIER [8] (available in linux-next of Rafael's linux-pm tree [9]), the device links created between arm-smmu and its clients will be automatically purged when arm-smmu driver unbinds from its device. As not all implementations support clock/power gating, we are checking for a valid 'smmu->dev's pm_domain' to conditionally enable the runtime power management for such smmu implementations that can support it. Otherwise, the clocks are turned to be always on in .probe until .remove. With conditional runtime pm now, we avoid touching dev->power.lock in fastpaths for smmu implementations that don't need to do anything useful with pm_runtime. This lets us to use the much-argued pm_runtime_get_sync/put_sync() calls in map/unmap callbacks so that the clients do not have to worry about handling any of the arm-smmu's power. This series also adds support for Qcom's arm-smmu-v2 variant that has different clocks and power requirements. Previous version of this patch series is @ [2]. Tested this series on msm8996, and sdm845 after pulling in Rafael's linux-pm linux-next[9] and Joerg's iommu next[10] branches, and related changes for device tree, etc. Hi Robin, Will, I have addressed the comments for v13. If there's still a chance can you please consider pulling this for v4.19. Thanks. [v14] * Moved arm_smmu_device_reset() from arm_smmu_pm_resume() to arm_smmu_runtime_resume() so that the pm_resume callback calls only runtime_resume to resume the device. This should take care of restoring the state of smmu in systems in which smmu lose register state on power-domain collapse.It's been a while since this series was posted and no more comments seem to be left anymore. Would you have some time to take a look again? Thanks.
Other than the binding issue which turned up in the meantime, I *think* this is looking OK now in terms of being sufficiently safe for all the various awkward retention vs. state-loss combinations. There's almost certainly still ways to improve it in future, but what we have now seems like a reasonable starting point that isn't impossibly complicated to reason about.
Robin.
