* Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> [240819 09:21]:
> +Cc: Tony
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 5:48 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 13.08.2024 18:52, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
> > ...
> > >>> but somewhere in the replies
> > >>> here I would like to hear about roadmap to get rid of the
> > >>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() in all Tegra related code.
> > >>
> > >> What is the problem with pm_runtime_irq_safe()?
> > >
> > > It's a hack. It has no reasons to stay in the kernel. It also prevents
> > > PM from working properly (in some cases, not Tegra).
> >
> > Why is it a hack? Why it can't be made to work properly for all cases?
>
> Because it messes up with the proper power transitions of the parent
> devices. Refer to the initial commit c7b61de5b7b1 ("PM / Runtime: Add
> synchronous runtime interface for interrupt handlers (v3)") that
> pretty much explains the constraints of it. Also note, it was added
> quite a while after the main PM machinery had been introduced.
>
> What you have to use is device links to make sure the parent (PM
> speaking) may not go away.
> FWIW, if I am not mistaken the whole reconsideration of
> pm_runtime_irq_safe() had been started with this [1] thread.
>
> If you want to dive more into the history of this API, run `git log -S
> pm_runtime_irq_safe`. It gives you also interesting facts of how it
> was started being used and in many cases reverted or reworked for a
> reason.
Yeah we should remove pm_runtime_irq_safe() completely. Fixing the use
of it in a driver afterwards is always a pain. And so far there has
always been a better solution available for the use cases I've seen.
> > >> There were multiple
> > >> problems with RPM for this driver in the past, it wasn't trivial to make
> > >> it work for all Tegra HW generations. Don't expect anyone would want to
> > >> invest time into doing it all over again.
> > >
> > > You may always refer to the OMAP case, which used to have 12 (IIRC,
> > > but definitely several) calls to this API and now 0. Taking the OMAP
> > > case into consideration I believe it's quite possible to get rid of
> > > this hack and retire the API completely. Yes, this may take months or
> > > even years. But I would like to have this roadmap be documented.
> >
> > There should be alternative to the removed API. Otherwise drivers will
> > have to have own hacks to work around the RPM limitation, re-invent own
> > PM, or not do RPM at all.
> >
> > Looking at the i2c-omap.c, I see it's doing pm_runtime_get_sync() in the
> > atomic transfer, which should cause a lockup without IRQ-safe RPM,
> > AFAICT. The OMAP example doesn't look great so far.
>
> Bugs may still appear, but it's not a point. I can easily find a
> better example with a hint why it's bad to call that API [2][3][4] and
> so on.
Adding Kevin for the i2c-omap.c, sounds like it might depend on the
autosuspend timeout for runtime PM.
For issues where the controller may wake to an interrupt while runtime
idle, there's pm_runtime_get_noresume().
Regards,
Tony
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20180515183409.78046-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20191114101718.20619-1-peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx/
> [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20180920193532.7714-1-tony@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1463014396-4095-1-git-send-email-tony@xxxxxxxxxxx/
