Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM / Domains: Add support for PM domain on/off notifiers for genpd

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:38 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 18:16, Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19 2020 at 04:41 -0600, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > >A device may have specific HW constraints that must be obeyed to, before
> > >its corresponding PM domain (genpd) can be powered off - and vice verse at
> > >power on. These constraints can't be managed through the regular runtime PM
> > >based deployment for a device, because the access pattern for it, isn't
> > >always request based. In other words, using the runtime PM callbacks to
> > >deal with the constraints doesn't work for these cases.
> > >
> > >For these reasons, let's instead add a PM domain power on/off notification
> > >mechanism to genpd. To add/remove a notifier for a device, the device must
> > >already have been attached to the genpd, which also means that it needs to
> > >be a part of the PM domain topology.
> > >
> > >To add/remove a notifier, let's introduce two genpd specific functions:
> > > - dev_pm_genpd_add|remove_notifier()
> > >
> > >Note that, to further clarify when genpd power on/off notifiers may be
> > >used, one can compare with the existing CPU_CLUSTER_PM_ENTER|EXIT
> > >notifiers. In the long run, the genpd power on/off notifiers should be able
> > >to replace them, but that requires additional genpd based platform support
> > >for the current users.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> > >---
> > > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 130 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > include/linux/pm_domain.h   |  15 +++++
> > > 2 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > >index 4b787e1ff188..9cb85a5e8342 100644
> > >--- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > >+++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > >@@ -545,13 +545,21 @@ static int genpd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, bool one_dev_on,
> > >       if (!genpd->gov)
> > >               genpd->state_idx = 0;
> > >
> > >+      /* Notify consumers that we are about to power off. */
> > >+      ret = raw_notifier_call_chain(&genpd->power_notifiers, GENPD_STATE_OFF,
> > >+                                    NULL);
> > >+      if (ret)
> > >+              return ret;
> > >+
> > >       /* Don't power off, if a child domain is waiting to power on. */
> > >-      if (atomic_read(&genpd->sd_count) > 0)
> > >-              return -EBUSY;
> > >+      if (atomic_read(&genpd->sd_count) > 0) {
> > >+              ret = -EBUSY;
> > >+              goto busy;
> > >+      }
> > >
> > >       ret = _genpd_power_off(genpd, true);
> > >       if (ret)
> > >-              return ret;
> > >+              goto busy;
> > >
> > >       genpd->status = GENPD_STATE_OFF;
> > >       genpd_update_accounting(genpd);
> > >@@ -564,6 +572,9 @@ static int genpd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, bool one_dev_on,
> > >       }
> > >
> > >       return 0;
> > >+busy:
> > >+      raw_notifier_call_chain(&genpd->power_notifiers, GENPD_STATE_ON, NULL);
> > It would be helpful to abstract these notification related calls into
> > functions of their own. So, for CPU PM domains, it would help to add
> > RCU_NONIDLE() around the notifiers, allowing the callbacks to add trace
> > functions.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion! It makes perfect sense to me - and would
> also be consistent with how CPU PM notifiers are managed,

So I thought that you wanted to send a v2, but I cannot find it.

Cheers!