Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> >> I think I can live with the above restrictions (the _irq methods failing >> >> unless they can immediately run.) For the rare corner cases I've >> >> currently run into, this will work fine as they happen because of a >> >> wakeup IRQ, where we know the device is RPM_SUSPENDED. >> > >> > Then what will the driver do if it gets a wakeup IRQ but it can't >> > resume the device because some other thread is in the middle of a >> > suspend or resume? >> >> In those cases, I guess it will have to return IRQ_NONE, and print some >> sort of error. > > Without handling the IRQ? I guess if the transient state (SUSPENDING > or RESUMING) ends quickly enough then the kernel won't permanently > disable the IRQ line (although getting hundreds of repeated error > messages in the system log might prove daunting). Would you want to > rely on that? Probably not, I think the delayed approach is better. >> Alternatively, it could fall back to the high-latency >> case of masking the IRQ and doing an asynchronous call then call the ISR >> in the runtime_resume callback. > > Yes, this probably would be acceptable since it wouldn't happen very > often. Still, having two different pathways (one of which is very low > probability) usually isn't a good idea. >> For the corner cases that I've run into, other transitions will not be >> in progress because system has just woken up (so no threads are in the >> middle of suspends or resumes) and the IRQ fires as soon as pm_idle >> enables interrupts, and before there's a chance to schedule anything >> else. > > Ah, but once you integrate the runtime PM framework into your driver, > you run the risk of resumes occurring for reasons that aren't under > your control. For example, the user can force a runtime-suspended > device to resume by writing "on" to the device's power/control sysfs > attribute. What would happen if a wakeup IRQ arrived just as the > resume was starting? I guess the "mask-IRQ, pm_runtime_get(), return" approach would work here too. But I agree with you about the drivers having to handle both of these cases is not the greatest. > (Actually, this particular failure mode shouldn't concern you very much > since it applies only to SMP systems. But it's important to think of > the future -- I can imagine SMP OMAPs coming out before too long.) It already concerns me since I'm working on SMP OMAPs too. The OMAP4 is a dual ARM Cortex A9[1]. > On the whole, I don't see any striking reason for the PM core not to > busy-wait during a concurrent state change. Refusing to wake up a > suspended parent ... okay, maybe that's a little more defensible. > Especially since in many or most cases the parent (if there is one) > will probably be runtime-PM-disabled anyway. Not sure I follow where you're going with this last paragraph. Of course, calls from ISR context cannot busy wait. Kevin [1] http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?templateId=6123&navigationId=12842&contentId=53247 _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
