On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 02:06:48PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 12:02:33PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > Commit c5eb1190074c ("PCI / PM: Allow runtime PM without callback
> > functions") tried to eliminate the need for runtime PM callbacks
> > by modifying pci_pm_runtime_suspend() and pci_pm_runtime_resume(),
> > but didn't modify pci_pm_runtime_idle() with relevant changes, which
> > still returns -ENOSYS if the driver supplies no runtime PM callbacks.
> >
> > Fix this by modifying pci_pm_runtime_idle() such that it allows PCI
> > device power state transitions without runtime PM callbacks.
> >
> > 0) | pm_runtime_work() {
> > 0) | rpm_idle() {
> > 0) | rpm_check_suspend_allowed() {
> > 0) 1.500 us | __dev_pm_qos_resume_latency(); /* = 0x7fffffff */
> > 0) 4.840 us | } /* rpm_check_suspend_allowed = 0x0 */
> > 0) 1.550 us | __rpm_get_callback(); /* = 0xffffffffb4bc84f0 */
> > 0) 1.800 us | pci_pm_runtime_idle(); /* = -38 */
> > 0) + 17.070 us | } /* rpm_idle = -38 */
> > 0) + 22.450 us | } /* pm_runtime_work = -38 */
>
> What is this timing information telling me?
It's a raw ftrace dump.
> > Debugged-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sounds like this resolves a problem report? Is there a URL we can
> cite? If not, at least a mention of what the user-visible problem is?
>
> From the c5eb1190074c commit log, it sounds like maybe this allows
> devices to be autosuspended when they previously could not be?
>
> Possibly this should have "Fixes: c5eb1190074c ("PCI / PM: Allow
> runtime PM without callback functions")" since it sounds like it goes
> with it?
As pointed out by Jarkko, it's not a regression. The implementation
in original commit is incomplete. We discovered it while cleaning
up another PCI based driver.
> > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > This is not marked for linux-stable for the need of extensive testing
> > and can be backported after a few releases if no issues are reported.
>
> If you think this should not get backported to stable, you'll have to
> watch the backports to prevent it. Lots of stuff gets auto-backported
> even though not explicitly marked for stable. This comment won't
> prevent it (and won't even appear in the commit log).
This is why I've added Greg and Sasha here.
Raag
