On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:53 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 20:24, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Commit 6e176bf8d461 ("PM: sleep: core: Do not skip callbacks in the
> > resume phase") overlooked the case in which the parent of a device with
> > DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND set did not use that flag and could be runtime-
> > suspended before a transition into a system-wide sleep state. In that
> > case, if the child is resumed during the subsequent transition from
> > that state into the working state, its runtime PM status will be set to
> > RPM_ACTIVE, but the runtime PM status of the parent will not be updated
> > accordingly, even though the parent will be resumed too, because of the
> > dev_pm_skip_suspend() check in device_resume_noirq().
> >
> > Address this problem by tracking the need to set the runtime PM status
> > to RPM_ACTIVE during system-wide resume transitions for devices with
> > DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND set and all of the devices depended on by them.
> >
> > Fixes: 6e176bf8d461 ("PM: sleep: core: Do not skip callbacks in the resume phase")
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/Z30p2Etwf3F2AUvD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > Reported-by: Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/main.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > include/linux/pm.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > @@ -656,13 +656,15 @@
> > * so change its status accordingly.
> > *
> > * Otherwise, the device is going to be resumed, so set its PM-runtime
> > - * status to "active", but do that only if DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND is set
> > - * to avoid confusing drivers that don't use it.
> > + * status to "active" unless its power.set_active flag is clear, in
> > + * which case it is not necessary to update its PM-runtime status.
> > */
> > - if (skip_resume)
> > + if (skip_resume) {
> > pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
> > - else if (dev_pm_skip_suspend(dev))
> > + } else if (dev->power.set_active) {
> > pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> > + dev->power.set_active = false;
> > + }
> >
> > if (dev->pm_domain) {
> > info = "noirq power domain ";
> > @@ -1189,18 +1191,24 @@
> > return PMSG_ON;
> > }
> >
> > -static void dpm_superior_set_must_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +static void dpm_superior_set_must_resume(struct device *dev, bool set_active)
> > {
> > struct device_link *link;
> > int idx;
> >
> > - if (dev->parent)
> > + if (dev->parent) {
> > dev->parent->power.must_resume = true;
> > + if (set_active)
> > + dev->parent->power.set_active = true;
> > + }
> >
> > idx = device_links_read_lock();
> >
> > - list_for_each_entry_rcu_locked(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node)
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu_locked(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node) {
> > link->supplier->power.must_resume = true;
> > + if (set_active)
> > + link->supplier->power.set_active = true;
>
> If I understand correctly, the suppliers are already handled when the
> pm_runtime_set_active() is called for consumers, so the above should
> not be needed.
It is needed because pm_runtime_set_active() doesn't cause the setting
to propagate to the parent's/suppliers of the suppliers AFAICS.
> That said, maybe we instead allow parent/child to work in the similar
> way as for consumer/suppliers, when pm_runtime_set_active() is called
> for the child. In other words, when pm_runtime_set_active() is called
> for a child and the parent is runtime PM enabled, let's runtime resume
> it too, as we do for suppliers. Would that work, you think?
The parent is not runtime-PM enabled when this happens.
