From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756528AbbGFXl5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:41:57 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:56548 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756229AbbGFXlX (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:41:23 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Alan Stern Cc: Tomeu Vizoso , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Laurent Pinchart , Dmitry Torokhov , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ulf Hansson , Kevin Hilman , Russell King , Krzysztof Kozlowski , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:07:47 +0200 Message-ID: <14963352.fDKd3nIddf@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.1.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1714292.iHVMDeHUzi@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1714292.iHVMDeHUzi@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, July 06, 2015 01:36:46 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, July 04, 2015 10:37:55 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > >> > Perhaps the pm_runtime_suspended_if_enabled() test should be changed to > > > > >> > pm_runtime_status_suspended(). Then it won't matter whether the > > > > >> > descendant devices are enabled for runtime PM. > > > > >> > > > > >> Yeah, that would remove the need for messing with the runtime PM > > > > >> enable status of descendant devices, but I wonder why Rafael went that > > > > >> way initially. > > > > > > > > > > I forget the details. Probably it was just to be safe. We probably > > > > > thought that if a device was disabled for runtime PM then its runtime > > > > > PM status might not be accurate. But if direct_complete is set then it > > > > > may be reasonable to assume that the runtime PM status _is_ accurate. > > > > > > > > Cool. > > > > > > We're walking a grey area here. What exactly does power.direct_complete mean > > > for devices whose runtime PM is disabled? > > > > > > Let's see what Rafael thinks about these two issues. It seems to me > > > > that the hardest part is dealing with drivers/subsystems that have no > > > > runtime PM support. In such cases, we have to be very careful not to > > > > use direct_complete unless we know that the device does no power > > > > management at all. > > > > > > Precisely. > > > > All right, we can make a decision and document it. The following seems > > reasonable to me: > > > > If dev->power.direct_complete is set then the PM core will > > assume that dev->power.rpm_status is accurate even when > > dev->power.disable_depth > 0. The core will obey the > > .direct_complete setting regardless of .disable_depth. > > > > As a consequence, devices that support system sleep but don't > > support runtime PM must _never_ have .direct_complete set. > > > > On the other hand, if a device (such as a "virtual" device) > > requires no callbacks for either system sleep or runtime PM, > > then there is no harm in setting .direct_complete. Indeed, > > doing so may help speed up an ancestor device's sleep > > transition. > > > > How does that sound? > > It would be workable I think, but I'd prefer the core to be told directly > about devices whose runtime PM status doesn't matter (because nothing changes > between "suspended" and "active"), so they may be treated in a special way > safely. > > If we had that information, no special rules other than "that is a device > whose runtime PM status doesn't matter, so treat it accordingly" would be > necessary. That said, a situation to consider is when device X is just a software device, but it has children that correspond to physical hardware. If that is the case, the usual parent-children rules should apply to X and its children (ie. X should only be marked as "suspended" if all of its children are suspended) and I see no reason why the parent-children rules for direct_resume should not apply here. Thanks, Rafael