From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Archit Taneja <archit@ti.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Async runtime put in __device_release_driver()
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:51:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5279F50E.6040304@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFp0UGjEbn+pWDLKOQvKsxeXSh5hY3++TA1rpErfihOtPA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2577 bytes --]
On 2013-11-05 23:29, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 23 October 2013 12:11, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was debugging why clocks were left enabled after removing omapdss
>> driver, and I found this commit:
>>
>> fa180eb448fa263cf18dd930143b515d27d70d7b (PM / Runtime: Idle devices
>> asynchronously after probe|release)
>>
>> I don't understand how that is supposed to work.
>>
>> When a driver is removed, instead of using pm_runtime_put_sync() the
>> commit uses pm_runtime_put(), so the runtime_suspend call is queued. But
>> who is going to handle the queued suspend call, as the driver is already
>> removed? At least in my case, obviously nobody, as I only get
>> runtime_resume call in my driver, never the runtime_suspend.
>>
>> Is there something I need to add to my driver to make this work, or
>> should that part of the patch be reverted?
>
> I believe it is quite common that a device driver calls
> pm_runtime_get_sync as a part of it's remove callback, then it
> explicitly returns it's resources that has been fetched during probe.
> Like a clk_disable_unprepare for example.
I guess you mean the driver calls pm_runtime_get_sync _and_
pm_runtime_put_sync as part of its remove callback?
Probably bus drivers need to do that, but for memory mapped devices in a
SoC, I don't think there's normally any need to do
pm_runtime_get/put_sync during the remove callback.
> The idea behind the change in __device_release_driver, was to try to
> prevent devices from going active->idle->active and instead just
> remain active (if possible).
>
> In your case, which seems like a more modern way of implementing
> "remove", you shall call "pm_runtime_suspend" to make sure the
> runtime_suspend callbacks gets called.
And as far as I understand, the change creates an explicit requirement
to do either pm_runtime_get/put_sync or pm_runtime_suspend inside
driver's remove callback. If so, that should be mentioned in big red
letters in the pm-runtime documentation.
The runtime_pm.txt doc does mention something related to this (and btw,
the doc says pm_runtime_put_sync is being called, which is no longer
true), but nothing clear about how the driver remove callback must be
implemented.
I tried grepping the kernel sources to find out if pm_runtime_suspend is
widely used to get SoC platform devices to suspend, but it doesn't seem
like it is. I didn't see pm_runtime_get/put_sync being used in remove
callbacks widely either, but that was more difficult one to grep.
Tomi
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-06 7:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-23 10:11 Async runtime put in __device_release_driver() Tomi Valkeinen
2013-11-05 21:29 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-06 7:51 ` Tomi Valkeinen [this message]
2013-11-06 22:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-06 22:02 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-06 22:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-06 22:48 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-07 0:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-07 0:21 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-11-07 1:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-07 8:18 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-07 18:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=5279F50E.6040304@ti.com \
--to=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
--cc=archit@ti.com \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.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).