Re: [RFC PATCH V2 3/8] genirq: Add runtime power management support for IRQ chips

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>]

On 20/01/16 15:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 18/01/16 14:47, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>> +/* Inline functions for support of irq chips that require runtime pm */
>>>> +static inline int chip_pm_get(struct irq_desc *desc)
>>>
>>> Why does these new get/put functions need to be inline functions and
>>> thus defined in the header file? Perhaps move them to manage.c are
>>> better?
>>
>> They don't have to be, and so I can move them.
> 
> Yes, please make them proper functions. The proper place for them is chip.c
>  
>>> This won't play nicely when CONFIG_PM is unset, as pm_runtime_put()
>>> would return -ENOSYS. In such cases I guess you would like to ignore
>>> the error!?
>>
>> Ok, yes good point.
> 
> So you need a CONFIG_PM variant and stubs which return 0 for the !PM case.
>  
>>>> @@ -1116,6 +1116,10 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
>>>>         if (!try_module_get(desc->owner))
>>>>                 return -ENODEV;
>>>>
>>>> +       ret = chip_pm_get(desc);
>>>> +       if (ret < 0)
>>>> +               return ret;
> 
> That leaks the module refcount.

Ok, I will fix that.

>>> I don't think using __free_irq() is the correct place to decrease the
>>> runtime PM usage count. It will keep the irqchip runtime resumed even
>>> if there are no irqs enabled for it.
>>>
>>> Instead I would rather allow the irqchip to be runtime suspended, when
>>> there are no irqs enabled on it.
> 
> Which is a no no, as you might lose interrupts that way. We disable interrupts
> lazy, i.e. we do not mask them. So no, you cannot do that from
> enable/disable_irq().
>  
>> This may appear ugly, but for something like this, we may need to have a
>> separate enable/disable API, such as
>> enable_irq_lazy()/disable_irq_lazy() which could be used to runtime
>> suspend/resume the chip and must not be used in critical sections.
> 
> enable_irq_lazy is a misnomer. enable_irq_pm or such might be acceptable.

That's fine with me.

> But before we go there I really want to see a proper use case for such
> functions.

Ok, that makes sense.

Cheers
Jon