Re: [PATCH 0/12] PM / sleep: Driver flags for system suspend/resume

From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Documentation <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/12] PM / sleep: Driver flags for system suspend/resume
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:34:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFpNHL=tZYbQduDJqypz7rbwPwvW7sOymm-djbRSFgZ00g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2745759.OYb9FSKnNE@aspire.rjw.lan>

[...]

>> Are there any major reasons why the appended patch (obviously untested) won't
>> work, then?
>
> OK, there is a reason, which is the optimizations bundled into
> pm_runtime_force_*, because (a) the device may be left in runtime suspend
> by them (in which case amba_pm_suspend_early() in my patch should not run)
> and (b) pm_runtime_force_resume() may decide to leave it suspended (in which
> case amba_pm_suspend_late() in my patch should not run).

Exactly.

>
> [BTW, the "leave the device suspended" optimization in pm_runtime_force_*
> is potentially problematic too, because it requires the children to do
> the right thing, which effectively means that their drivers need to use
> pm_runtime_force_* too, but what if they don't want to reuse their
> runtime PM callbacks for system-wide PM?]

Deployment of pm_runtime_force_suspend() should generally be done for
children devices first.

If some reason that isn't the case, it's expected that the call to
pm_runtime_set_suspended() invoked from pm_runtime_force_suspend(),
for the parent, should fail and thus abort system suspend.

>
> Honestly, I don't like the way this is designed.  IMO, it would be better
> to do the optimizations and all in the bus type middle-layer code instead
> of expecting drivers to use pm_runtime_force_* as their system-wide PM
> callbacks (and that expectation should at least be documented, which I'm
> not sure is the case now).  But whatever.
>
> It all should work the way it does now without pm_runtime_force_* if (a) the
> bus type's PM callbacks are changed like in the last patch and the drivers
> (b) point their system suspend callbacks to the runtime PM callback routines
> and (c) set DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND and DPM_FLAG_LEAVE_SUSPENDED for the
> devices (if they need to do the PM in ->suspend and ->resume, they may set
> DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM too).
>
> And if you see a reason why that won't work, please let me know.

I will have look and try out the series by using my local "runtime PM
test driver".

I get back to you with an update on this.

Kind regards
Uffe