From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 02:31:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1564143.gqjAhPtVFo@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAObsKD1AbpkWytnA0=uwzUih-g4p-kXU8zSv-csnihCjvvteg@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday, July 03, 2015 04:22:02 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 3 July 2015 at 16:16, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >
> >> On 2 July 2015 at 17:21, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Just because these sub-devices are virtual, it doesn't mean you can
> >> >> > ignore the way they interact with runtime PM.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fair enough, but then, how are we expected to be able to use the
> >> >> direct_complete facility if the core bails out if a descendant doesn't
> >> >> have runtime PM enabled?
> >> >>
> >> >> > In the case of ep_87 this doesn't matter. Endpoint devices (like all
> >> >> > devices) are in the SUSPENDED state by default when they are created,
> >> >> > and they never leave that state.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't see why it doesn't matter for endpoints or the others. They
> >> >> don't have runtime PM enabled, so no ancestor will be able to do
> >> >> direct_complete.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, you're concerned about these lines near the start of
> >> > __device_suspend():
> >> >
> >> > if (dev->power.direct_complete) {
> >> > if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
> >> > pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> >> > if (pm_runtime_suspended_if_enabled(dev))
> >> > goto Complete;
> >> >
> >> > pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> >> > }
> >> > dev->power.direct_complete = false;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > 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?
> >> >> > A possible way around the problem is to use pm_suspend_ignore_children
> >> >> > on the uvcvideo interface. But I'm not sure that would be the right
> >> >> > thing to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> Would that mean that if a device has ignore_children then it could
> >> >> still do direct_complete even if its descendants weren't able to?
> >> >
> >> > I think we could justify that. The ignore_children flag means we can
> >> > communicate with the children even when the device is in runtime
> >> > suspend, so there's no reason to force the device to leave runtime
> >> > suspend during a system sleep.
> >>
> >> IIUIC, what you are proposing is to use ignore_children in a way
> >> similar to how force_direct_complete was used in this patch?
> >>
> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/60198/focus=60292
> >
> > That message doesn't contain a patch.
>
> The patch is at the top of the thread:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/60198/focus=60292
>
> >> That should work as well, but Rafael raised some objections and thus I
> >> went with the present direct_complete_default, which should work if we
> >> can relax the check as discussed above.
> >
> > Rafael and I briefly discussed ignore_children while the original
> > direct_complete patch was being designed. We didn't come to any
> > definite conclusion and decided to forget about it for the time being.
> > Maybe now would be a good time to reconsider it.
>
> I would prefer to have ignore_children ignore whether the children of
> a device were able to do direct_complete, rather than having a
> direct_complete_default flag (plus not requiring that all its
> descendants have runtime PM enabled).
Why?
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-04 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-19 14:11 [PATCH v3 0/2] PM: direct_complete_default and pm_runtime_enable_recursive Tomeu Vizoso
2015-05-19 14:11 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] PM / sleep: Add power.direct_complete_default flag Tomeu Vizoso
2015-05-19 17:50 ` Alan Stern
2015-05-19 20:47 ` Ulf Hansson
2015-05-19 23:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-19 14:11 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive Tomeu Vizoso
2015-05-19 17:49 ` Alan Stern
2015-05-19 23:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-20 9:03 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-05-20 14:24 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-02 13:59 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-07-02 15:21 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-03 8:11 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-07-03 14:16 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-03 14:22 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-07-03 15:11 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-04 0:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-04 0:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2015-07-04 14:37 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-05 23:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-07 0:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-07 14:55 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-07 22:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-08 20:31 ` Alan Stern
2015-07-14 13:19 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-07-14 21:57 ` Alan Stern
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1564143.gqjAhPtVFo@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=k.kozlowski@samsung.com \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).