On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:16:59PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:09:00 +0300
> Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:01:51PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:55:25 +0300
> > > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> > >
> > > > Hi Mauro,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the patch.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 08:44:35AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > > > Commit dd8088d5a896 ("PM: runtime: Add pm_runtime_resume_and_get to deal with usage counter")
> > > > > added pm_runtime_resume_and_get() in order to automatically handle
> > > > > dev->power.usage_count decrement on errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Use the new API, in order to cleanup the error check logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-core.c | 11 +++++------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-core.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-core.c
> > > > > index 9dc3f45da3dc..1441ddcc9b35 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-core.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-core.c
> > > > > @@ -1880,12 +1880,11 @@ static int ccs_pm_get_init(struct ccs_sensor *sensor)
> > > > > struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(&sensor->src->sd);
> > > > > int rval;
> > > > >
> > > > > - rval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&client->dev);
> > > > > - if (rval < 0) {
> > > > > - pm_runtime_put_noidle(&client->dev);
> > > > > -
> > > > > + rval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&client->dev);
> > > > > + if (rval < 0)
> > > > > return rval;
> > > > > - } else if (!rval) {
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!rval) {
> > > > > rval = v4l2_ctrl_handler_setup(&sensor->pixel_array->
> > > > > ctrl_handler);
> > > > > if (rval)
> > > > > @@ -3089,7 +3088,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused ccs_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > > bool streaming = sensor->streaming;
> > > > > int rval;
> > > > >
> > > > > - rval = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > > > > + rval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
> > > > > if (rval < 0) {
> > > > > pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> > > >
> > > > You'll need to drop pm_runtime_put_noidle() here.
> > >
> > > OK!
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > On a non-related issue at the same code, after the change, the
> > > suspend function will be:
> > >
> > > static int __maybe_unused ccs_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > > struct v4l2_subdev *subdev = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > > struct ccs_sensor *sensor = to_ccs_sensor(subdev);
> > > bool streaming = sensor->streaming;
> > > int rval;
> > >
> > > rval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
> > > if (rval < 0)
> > > return -EAGAIN;
> > >
> > > if (sensor->streaming)
> > > ccs_stop_streaming(sensor);
> > >
> > > /* save state for resume */
> > > sensor->streaming = streaming;
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Not sure if "return -EAGAIN" is the right thing here. I mean,
> > > the PM runtime core has two error conditions that are independent
> > > on whatever the PM callback would be doing[1]:
> > >
> > > if (dev->power.runtime_error)
> > > retval = -EINVAL;
> > > else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0)
> > > retval = -EACCES;
> > >
> > > It would be very unlikely that trying to suspend again would solve
> > > those conditions.
> > >
> > > So, I guess that the right thing to do is to change the code
> > > to do, instead:
> > >
> > > static int __maybe_unused ccs_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > > struct v4l2_subdev *subdev = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > > struct ccs_sensor *sensor = to_ccs_sensor(subdev);
> > > bool streaming = sensor->streaming;
> > > int rval;
> > >
> > > rval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
> > > if (rval < 0)
> > > return rval;
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] see rpm_resume() code at drivers/base/power/runtime.c.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree. This code is one of the older parts the driver.
> >
> > Please add:
> >
> > Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The same goes for the other sensor driver patches in the set you cc'd me,
> > i.e. patches 12, 15, 26, 28,32, 40, 45, 51, 53 and 55.
>
> It probably makes sense to address the suspend/resume -EAGAIN
> return code on a separate patch series, before this one, as:
>
> 1. this is unrelated to this change;
> 2. it is something that should be c/c to fixes. So, having it
> before this series makes easier to apply there.
Sounds good to me. If you can submit a patch, please add my ack. :-)
--
Sakari Ailus
