On Sat, 25 Dec 2010, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> I'll try to explain, and if something is still not clear, please let me know.
>
> Our wlan device is an ARM microcontroller running some flavor of RTOS
> (i.e. the firmware); as I mentioned before, its power and reset
> functionalities are tied together (as far as software is concerned. a
> small detail I won't get into now). The ability to unconditionally
> power it down is needed for error recovery, for booting a new firmware
> (and for unconditionally stopping all radios...).
Okay.
> The driver assumes it can unconditionally power down the device, and
> is built around this assumption, so a user interface such as
> /sys/devices/.../power/control has no sense, and if set to 'on', will
> be fatal for this driver (e.g. it will not be possible to bring the
> wlan interface down and up).
>
> There is no way around this. The driver must be able to
> unconditionally power the hardware down.
Right. You may or may not realize it, but this requirement means that
the driver _must_ bypass runtime PM sometimes.
> About the suspend/resume issue:
>
> This is a mac80211 driver. It is basically a set of "dumb" handlers,
> which mac80211 uses to abstract the hardware differences between its
> various drivers. For example, there are handlers to take down/up an
> interface, to start/stop the hardware, etc..
>
> When one of the driver's handlers is being called, the driver doesn't
> really know (or care) if this is during runtime or not. If it is asked
> to stop its hardware, it should just do so.
With you so far.
> And when (in our case)
> this handler is invoked during system suspend, any disability to power
> off the device immediately opens a window for races due to the
> driver's assumption, on resume, that the device was powered off
> successfully.
Now you've lost me. Which of the driver's handlers are you talking
about? The one responsible for powering down the device? What races?
Why does the driver have to _assume_ the device was powered off -- why
doesn't it simply _do_ the power down? (As you said above, if it is
asked to stop its hardware, it should just do so.)
> So, yeah, we do have a suspend() handler, which powers
> the device off directly, but we need the "runtime" handler of the
Which "runtime" handler? Are you talking about the runtime_suspend
method, the runtime_resume method, the runtime_idle method, or
something else?
> driver to immediately succeed too in order to prevent the race (and
> then it's fully powered off and we wouldn't need to wait for the
> suspend() handler to do so too). For that to happen, we need runtime
> PM not to be disabled during system suspend (or by
> /sys/devices/.../power/control).
At this point I'm so confused, it's hard to ask a rational question.
What goes wrong if runtime PM is disabled during system suspend?
Since the driver must bypass runtime PM anyway, what difference does it
make if runtime PM is disabled?
> Tweaking the driver around this limitation (to realize somehow if the
> hardware was really powered down or not) doesn't make sense and
> frankly isn't worth the effort, since the driver anyway has to be able
> to unconditionally power down the device for the aforementioned
> reasons (error recovery, reboot a new fw, disable radios, ..).
>
> A small comment: SDIO drivers' suspend handler is actually triggered
> by the mmc host controller's suspend routine (through the SDIO
> subsystem); it's not the classic dpm-triggered suspend handler, so
> Rafael's notion of "runtime only" flag will work here.
Maybe it would help if you provided a list of the relevant subroutines
together with descriptions of the circumstances under which they are
called and what they are expected to do. For example, a brief
pseudo-code listing.
> Why runtime PM:
>
> The device has an SDIO interface, so one of its incarnations is an SDIO driver.
>
> Short background: MMC/SDIO cards are dynamically probed, identified
> and configured by the MMC/SDIO subsystem, so toggling their power must
> take place from within the MMC/SDIO subsystem itself.
>
> Until recently, MMC/SDIO cards were kept powered on from the moment
> they were inserted, up until they were removed (exception: power was
> removed on system suspend and brought up back on resume. there is an
> exception to this exception, too, but I won't get into that now).
>
> Recently, we have added runtime PM support to the MMC/SDIO subsystem,
> so cards can be powered down when they're not in use. E.g., an SDIO
> card is powered down if no driver is available or requires power to
> it, and an MMC card might be powered off after some period of
> inactivity (the latter is just being discussed and has not yet hit
> mainline).
>
> As far as the MMC/SDIO subsystem is concerned, this is merely a power
> optimization, and it's perfectly fine if the user will disable runtime
> PM for the card and by that disallow powering it down.
>
> But for our particular device this is fatal; as explained, the driver
> must have unconditional control of the device's power.
>
> So we need runtime PM at the subsystem level (to allow the MMC/SDIO
> subsystem power it off in case the driver is not loaded), but we will
> have no choice but bypass runtime PM at the driver level, in order to
> avoid the aforementioned suspend race, and a potential
> /sys/devices/.../power/control block.
That all makes sense, and there's nothing wrong with it. (Except that
I still don't know what suspend race you mean.)
> To maintain coherency with the runtime-PM's usage_count
It's not necessary to maintain usage_count while you're bypassing
runtime PM. Just make sure when you're done that everything is back in
sync.
For example, the USB subsystem bypasses runtime PM for interface
drivers; the interface driver is told to suspend at the time the
interface's parent device driver suspends. This means it's possible to
see that an interface's runtime PM status is RPM_SUSPENDED even though
the interface driver's suspend method hasn't been called. In the end
it all works out okay.
> (and by that
> prevent dpm_complete() from powering off our device after a system
> resume)
Why shouldn't dpm_complete cause the device to be powered down
(assuming the device isn't in use, of course)?
> we will also keep calling the pm_runtime_{get, put} API
> appropriately.
>
> It's not pretty, but this is the only way we can make this work
> (unless, of course, our use case will be supported within the
> runtime-PM framework itself).
It doesn't sound any less pretty than the situation in USB, so you
shouldn't be too concerned about the aesthetics. :-)
Alan Stern
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
