From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752733AbaKDJL7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:11:59 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:60600 "EHLO mail-qc0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752662AbaKDJLh (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:11:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1464221.Cac76ZHBQl@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1464221.Cac76ZHBQl@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] amba: Don't unprepare the clocks if device driver wants IRQ safe runtime PM From: Ulf Hansson To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alan Stern , Russell King - ARM Linux , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Jonathan Corbet , Dan Williams , Vinod Koul , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen , Michal Simek , Kyungmin Park , Marek Szyprowski , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz 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 4 November 2014 02:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, November 03, 2014 10:41:02 AM Alan Stern wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> > That makes it pretty horrid from the point of view of having bus >> > management code, because we now have the management of the bus clock >> > split between the bus layer and the device driver. >> > >> > This is /really/ a problem for runtime PM. Runtime PM permits there >> > to be a bus layer involved - and runtime PM can also be coupled up >> > to PM domains as well. For all this stuff, the context which the >> > callbacks are called in depends on whether the driver itself has >> > marked the device as having IRQ-safe callbacks. >> > >> > That's fine, but the bus and PM domain level code then /really/ needs >> > to know what context they're being called in, so they know whether >> > they can sleep or not, or they must to be written to always use >> > non-sleeping functions so they work in both contexts. If we assume >> > the former, then that implies that the irq-safe flag must never change >> > state between a suspend and a resume. >> >> If a bus subsystem or PM domain is going to allow its drivers to choose >> between IRQ-safe and non-IRQ-safe runtime PM, then it is up to the >> subsystem to come up with a way for drivers to indicate their choice. >> >> I tend to agree with Rafael that testing dev->power.irq_safe should be >> good enough, with no real need for a wrapper. But the subsystem can >> use a different mechanism if it wants. >> >> Bear in mind, however, that once the irq_safe flag has been set, the >> runtime PM core offers no way to turn it off again. > > There is a problem with it, though. Say, a driver handles a device that > may or may not be in a power domain. Or in other words, the power domain > the device is in may or may not be always on. If the domain is always on, > the runtime PM callbacks are IRQ-safe (they depend on the driver only). > If it isn't, they may not be IRQ-safe. How's the driver going to decide > whether or not to set power.irq_safe? >>From my point of view; the decision whether the driver will set the IRQ safe flag is in principle a software design choice. Currently genpd isn't able to power off, if one of its devices are IRQ safe configured. That's a limitation in genpd which we need to fix and it's on my TODO list. My point is thus, I don't think the driver should care about PM domains at all regarding using the IRQ safe option. Does that make sense? Kind regards Uffe