Hi Felipe, On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:48:39AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> >> Adding APIs to handle runtime power management on PHY >> >> devices. PHY consumers may need to wake-up/suspend PHYs >> >> when they work across autosuspend. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> include/linux/usb/phy.h | 141 >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> 1 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/phy.h b/include/linux/usb/phy.h >> >> index 6b5978f..01bf9c1 100644 >> >> --- a/include/linux/usb/phy.h >> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb/phy.h >> >> @@ -297,4 +297,145 @@ static inline const char *usb_phy_type_string(enum >> >> usb_phy_type type) >> >> return "UNKNOWN PHY TYPE"; >> >> } >> >> } >> >> + >> >> +static inline void usb_phy_autopm_enable(struct usb_phy *x) >> >> +{ >> >> + if (!x || !x->dev) { >> >> + dev_err(x->dev, "no PHY or attached device available\n"); >> >> + return; >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> + pm_runtime_enable(x->dev); >> >> +} >> > >> > >> > IMO we need not have wrapper APIs for runtime_enable and runtime_disable >> > here. Generally runtime_enable and runtime_disable is done in probe and >> > remove of a driver respectively. So it's better to leave the >> > runtime_enable/runtime_disable to be done in *phy provider* driver than >> > having an API for it to be done by *phy user* driver. Felipe, what do you >> > think? >> >> Thanks!! >> That's very true, runtime_enable() and runtime_disable() calls are made by >> *phy_provider* only. But a querry here. >> Wouldn't in any case a PHY consumer might want to disable runtime_pm on PHY ? >> Say, when consumer failed to suspend the PHY properly >> (*put_sync(phy->dev)* fails), how much sure is the consumer about the >> state of PHY ? > > no no, wait a minute. We might not want to enable runtime pm for the PHY > until the UDC says it can handle runtime pm, no ? I guess this makes a > bit of sense (at least in my head :-p). > > Imagine if PHY is runtime suspended but e.g. DWC3 isn't runtime pm > enabled... Does it make sense to leave that control to the USB > controller drivers ? > > I'm open for suggestions Of course unless the PHY consumer can handle runtime PM for PHY, PHY should not ideally be going into runtime_suspend. Actually trying out few things, here are my observations Enabling runtime_pm on PHY pushes PHY to go into runtime_suspend state. But a device detection wakes up DWC3 controller, and if i don't wake up PHY (using get_sync(phy->dev)) here in runtime_resume() callback of DWC3, i don't get PHY back in active state. So it becomes the duty of DWC3 controller to handle PHY's sleep and wake-up. Thereby it becomes logical that DWC3 controller has the right to enable runtime_pm of PHY. But there's a catch here. if there are multiple consumers of PHY (like USB2 type PHY can have DWC3 controller as well as EHCI/OHCI or even HSGadget) then in that case, only one of the consumer can enable runtime_pm on PHY. So who decides this. Aargh!! lot of confusion here :-( > > -- > balbi -- Thanks & Regards Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html