From: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 8)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:12:43 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aec7e5c30907070812n7b418c9bobf64a5259cb6c58d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200907060252.12755.rjw@sisk.pl>
Hi Rafael,
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's a rev. 8 of the run-time PM framework patch.
>
> Highlights:
> * I did my best to follow the design we've recently discussed.
> * pm_runtime_[get|put]() and the sync versions call
> pm_[request|runtime]_[resume|idle](), because I don't see much point
> manipulating the usage counter alone.
> * pm_runtime_disable() carries out a (synchronous) wake-up if there's a
> resume request pending.
>
> Comments welcome.
I've now jumped from v5 to v8 and I feel that the code is getting
cleaner and cleaner. Very nice.
My intention was to post a SuperH prototype last week, but I got side
tracked with other stuff. And today I ran into some problems related
to probe() that I'd like to ask about right away. At this point I've
got a few device drivers converted and some simple bus
runtime_suspend()/runtime_resume() code that stop and start clocks.
Issue 1:
------------
Device drivers which do not perform any hardware access in probe()
work fine. During software setup in probe() the runtime pm code is
initialized with the following:
+ pm_suspend_ignore_children(&dev->dev, true);
+ pm_runtime_set_suspended(&dev->dev);
+ pm_runtime_enable(&dev->dev);
Before accessing hardware I perform:
+ pm_runtime_resume(pd->dev);
When done with the hardware I do:
+ pm_runtime_suspend(pd->dev);
Not so complicated. Am I supposed to initialize something else as well?
All good with the code above, but there seem to be some issue with how
usage_count is counted up and down and when runtime_disabled is set:
1. pm_runtime_init(): usage_count = 1, runtime_disabled = true
2. driver_probe_device(): pm_runtime_get_sync()
3. pm_runtime_get_sync(): usage_count = 2
4. device driver probe(): pm_runtime_enable()
5. pm_runtime_enable(): usage_count = 1
6. driver_probe_device(): pm_runtime_put()
7. pm_runtime_put(): usage_count = 0
I expect runtime_disabled = false in 7. Modifying the get/put calls to
do enable/disable may work around the issue, but that's probably not
what you guys want.
Issue 2:
------------
I cannot get any bus ->runtime_resume() callbacks from probe(). This
also seems related to usage_count and pm_runtime_get_sync() in
driver_probe_device(). Basically, from probe(), calling
pm_runtime_resume() after pm_runtime_set_suspended() results in error
and not in a ->runtime_resume() callback. Some device drives access
hardware in probe(), so the ->runtime_resume() callback is needed at
that point to turn on clocks before the hardware can be accessed.
Random thought:
-------------------------
The runtime_pm_get() and runtime_pm_put() look very nice. I assume
that inteface is supposed to be used by bus code. I wonder if it would
be cleaner to use a similar counter based interface from the driver
instead of the pm_runtime_idle()/suspend()/resume()...
Let me know what you think!
Cheers,
/ magnus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-07 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-06 0:52 Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-07 15:12 ` Magnus Damm [this message]
2009-07-07 22:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-08 2:54 ` Alan Stern
2009-07-08 4:40 ` Magnus Damm
2009-07-08 14:26 ` Alan Stern
2009-07-08 17:50 ` [update][RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 9) Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-08 5:45 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 8) Magnus Damm
2009-07-08 19:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-08 19:42 ` Alan Stern
2009-07-08 19:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-08 21:09 ` Alan Stern
2009-07-08 21:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-09 2:52 ` Magnus Damm
2009-07-09 13:48 ` Alan Stern
2009-07-09 15:31 ` Magnus Damm
2009-07-09 21:56 ` [linux-pm] " Mahalingam, Nithish
2009-07-11 11:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-12 2:05 ` Mahalingam, Nithish
2009-07-13 1:42 ` Magnus Damm
2009-07-09 23:22 ` Pavel Machek
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=aec7e5c30907070812n7b418c9bobf64a5259cb6c58d@mail.gmail.com \
--to=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®