On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> As Rafael mentioned, there is bus/pm_domain code that comes into play > >> here, so I'm not sure it's always a bug. > >> > >> IMO, it's not a bug for the driver to depend on runtime PM if the > >> bus/pm_domain is handling the details. > >> > >> On OMAP, we handle all the SoC on-chip devices with a pm_domain since > >> the low-level PM operations that need to happen are bus-level things not > >> device-level things. Therefore, drivers for these devices can rely > >> entirely on runtime PM, even for system suspend. The late/early > >> callbacks in the pm_domain can see if the device is runtime suspended > >> already or not and behave accordingly. > >> > >> So, this all *can* work by handling it at the bus/pm_domain level, but > >> as Ulf has mentioned (and I agree) it seems like a clunky workaround > >> because the PM core is preventing it from happening as one might expect. > > > > The problem is that userspace can disable runtime PM at any time by > > writing "on" to /sys/.../power/control. Once that's done, you can't > > depend on runtime PM to put the device into a low-power state during > > system suspend. > > > > Now, if the bus-level code always takes care of putting the device into > > low power during system suspend, then the driver doesn't have to worry > > about it at all. That's perfectly fine -- but I would hardly describe > > the situation by saying the driver relies on runtime PM for system > > suspend. > > But they are, since that is exactly what these driver depends on > during system suspend. Not at all. These drivers rely on the bus-level code's suspend routine to handle system suspend. They don't rely on runtime PM. > And since the power domain invokes the runtime > callbacks, normally CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is needed for the callbacks to > be set up from in the bus/driver. No, it isn't. You can always write callbacks that get compiled even when CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME isn't enabled. It's very easy -- all you have to do is change #ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME to #ifdef CONFIG_PM > I suppose that the OMAP SoC maintainers were accepting that this > dependency were allowed to exist, since that was the only solution to > their problem at that point. > > Today, several years later, we are still indirectly pushing those SoC > maintainers that faces similar issues, to accept this dependency > between system suspend and runtime suspend. I see a conflict here. :-) It's only a misunderstanding. There is no dependency. > I started drafting a new RFC according to your suggestion. Soon I > realized that using such a callback for .suspend_late will make > drivers/buses system suspend to depend on runtime suspend, (which my > RFC also has problem with). So I guess this is not a recommended set > up from the PM maintainers. Wandering in circles... :-) Same misunderstanding as before. The drivers merely need to be written so that the callbacks are compiled whenever CONFIG_PM is enabled rather than CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
