On Friday, September 1, 2017 10:27:05 AM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 29 August 2017 at 17:27, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 4:56:48 PM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> This change enables the ACPI PM domain to cope with drivers that deploys
> >> the runtime PM centric path for system sleep.
> >
> > [cut]
> >
> >> @@ -1052,11 +1066,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_subsys_complete);
> >> * @dev: Device to handle.
> >> *
> >> * Follow PCI and resume devices suspended at run time before running their
> >> - * system suspend callbacks.
> >> + * system suspend callbacks. However, try to avoid it in case the runtime PM
> >> + * centric path is used for the device and then trust the driver to do the
> >> + * right thing.
> >> */
> >> int acpi_subsys_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >> {
> >> - pm_runtime_resume(dev);
> >> + struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> >> +
> >> + if (!adev)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (!dev_pm_is_rpm_sleep(dev) || acpi_dev_needs_resume(dev, adev))
> >> + pm_runtime_resume(dev);
> >> +
> >> return pm_generic_suspend(dev);
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_subsys_suspend);
> >
> > Well, I tried to avoid calling acpi_dev_needs_resume() for multiple times
> > and that's why I added the update_state thing.
> >
> > Moreover, the is_rpm_sleep flag here has to mean not only that
> > direct_complete should not be used with the device, but also that its driver
> > is fine with not resuming it.
>
> Let me try to explain this better. I realize the changelog is
> misleading around this particular section! Huh, apologize for that!
>
> First, patch1 makes the PM core treat the is_rpm_sleep flag as the
> direct_complete isn't allowed for the device.
>
> For that reason, when the is_rpm_sleep is set, there is no point
> calling acpi_dev_needs_resume() from acpi_subsys_prepare(), but
> instead that can be deferred to acpi_subsys_suspend() - because it
> doesn't matter if acpi_subsys_prepare() returns 0 or 1, in either case
> the acpi_subsys_suspend() will be called. That's really what goes on
> here.
>
> The end result is the same. If the acpi_dev_needs_resume() thinks that
> the device needs to be runtime resumed, pm_runtime_resume() is called
> for the device in acpi_subsys_suspend().
>
> So, this has nothing to do with whether the driver "is fine with not
> resuming it" thing.
No, sorry.
If is_rpm_sleep was not set, the ACPI PM domain would resume the device in
acpi_subsys_suspend() regardless of the acpi_dev_needs_resume() return value.
That's what's there in the patch. So clearly, setting is_rpm_sleep means
"this device does not need to be resumed in acpi_subsys_suspend() unless
acpi_dev_needs_resume() returns true". Which clearly means that the driver
*is* fine with not resuming it, because if is_rpm_sleep is set, the device
in fact may not be resumed and then the driver will need to cope with that.
And note that this meaning of is_rpm_sleep is different from what it is
expected to mean to the core.
> >
> > IMO it is not a good idea to use one flag for these two different things at the
> > same time at all.
>
> Yeah, I guess my upper comment addresses your immediate concern here?
No, they don't.
> However, there is one other thing the is_rpm_flag means. That is that
> the driver has informed the ACPI PM domain, to trust the driver to
> deal with system sleep, via re-using the runtime PM callbacks.
> So the flag does still have two meanings, but that we can change - of course.
I guess that you are referring to the use of dev_pm_is_rpm_sleep() in
acpi_subsys_suspend_late()? That's the third thing this flag means ...
Thanks,
Rafael
