Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive

From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
	"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, 4 Jul 2015 10:37:55 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1507041021080.19175-100000@netrider.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1564143.gqjAhPtVFo@vostro.rjw.lan>

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?

Alan Stern