From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752325AbcJVFu1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:50:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:37588 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751701AbcJVFuZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:50:25 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org CD0CB6184C Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sricharan@codeaurora.org From: "Sricharan" To: "'Marek Szyprowski'" , , , , Cc: "'Tomeu Vizoso'" , "'Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz'" , "'Greg Kroah-Hartman'" , "'Kevin Hilman'" , "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" , "'Tomasz Figa'" , "'Krzysztof Kozlowski'" , "'Inki Dae'" , "'Tobias Jakobi'" , "'Luis R. Rodriguez'" , "'Kukjin Kim'" , "'Mark Brown'" , "'Lukas Wunner'" References: <1476948173-21093-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1476948173-21093-7-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <1476948173-21093-7-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 6/7] iommu/exynos: Add runtime pm support Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 11:20:12 +0530 Message-ID: <000701d22c28$2da381d0$88ea8570$@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJ+uDLclmqDoXsyw4psny6anZSUigIue0G4AmQ1uaufNiwbIA== Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Marek, >This patch adds runtime pm implementation, which is based on previous >suspend/resume code. SYSMMU controller is now being enabled/disabled mainly >from the runtime pm callbacks. System sleep callbacks relies on generic >pm_runtime_force_suspend/pm_runtime_force_resume helpers. To ensure >internal state consistency, additional lock for runtime pm transitions >was introduced. > >Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski >--- > drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c >index a959443e6f33..5e6d7bbf9b70 100644 >--- a/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c >+++ b/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c >@@ -206,6 +206,7 @@ struct sysmmu_fault_info { > struct exynos_iommu_owner { > struct list_head controllers; /* list of sysmmu_drvdata.owner_node */ > struct iommu_domain *domain; /* domain this device is attached */ >+ struct mutex rpm_lock; /* for runtime pm of all sysmmus */ > }; > > /* >@@ -594,40 +595,46 @@ static int __init exynos_sysmmu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return 0; > } > >-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >-static int exynos_sysmmu_suspend(struct device *dev) >+static int __maybe_unused exynos_sysmmu_suspend(struct device *dev) > { > struct sysmmu_drvdata *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > struct device *master = data->master; > > if (master) { >- pm_runtime_put(dev); >+ struct exynos_iommu_owner *owner = master->archdata.iommu; >+ >+ mutex_lock(&owner->rpm_lock); More of a device link question, To understand, i see that with device link + runtime, the supplier callbacks are not called for irqsafe clients, even if supplier is irqsafe. Why so ? > if (data->domain) { > dev_dbg(data->sysmmu, "saving state\n"); > __sysmmu_disable(data); > } >+ mutex_unlock(&owner->rpm_lock); > } > return 0; > } > >-static int exynos_sysmmu_resume(struct device *dev) >+static int __maybe_unused exynos_sysmmu_resume(struct device *dev) > { > struct sysmmu_drvdata *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > struct device *master = data->master; > > if (master) { >- pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); >+ struct exynos_iommu_owner *owner = master->archdata.iommu; >+ >+ mutex_lock(&owner->rpm_lock); > if (data->domain) { > dev_dbg(data->sysmmu, "restoring state\n"); > __sysmmu_enable(data); > } >+ mutex_unlock(&owner->rpm_lock); > } > return 0; > } >-#endif > > static const struct dev_pm_ops sysmmu_pm_ops = { >- SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(exynos_sysmmu_suspend, exynos_sysmmu_resume) >+ SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(exynos_sysmmu_suspend, exynos_sysmmu_resume, NULL) >+ SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend, >+ pm_runtime_force_resume) > }; Is this needed to be LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS with device links to take care of the order ? Regards, Sricharan