Re: [PATCH update] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 11)

[Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>]

Hi again Rafael,

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> On Friday 31 July 2009, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> [Runtime PM v11]

>> > @@ -202,7 +203,9 @@ int driver_probe_device(struct device_dr
>> >        pr_debug("bus: '%s': %s: matched device %s with driver %s\n",
>> >                 drv->bus->name, __func__, dev_name(dev), drv->name);
>> >
>> > +       pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
>> >        ret = really_probe(dev, drv);
>> > +       pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
>> >
>> >        return ret;
>> >  }
>>
>> This creates problems when drivers want to performing runtime resume
>> from within probe(). For more details please have a look at "[PATCH
>> 04/04] video: Runtime PM hack for SuperH LCDC driver".
>
> Ah, I see.  You'd like to call pm_runtime_get_sync() from .probe(), but that
> sees the usage counter different from zero and exits immediately.

Exactly.

> OTOH, I think we should prevent suspends from racing with .probe() at the core
> level.  Hmm.

Doesn't it make more sense to allow runtime suspend and resume to
happen after the pm_runtime_enable() call? What case are you trying to
protect against?

> One possible approach could be to call pm_runtime_resume() from
> sh_mobile_lcdc_probe() instead of pm_runtime_put_noidle().  Then, the platform
> code will have a chance to turn the device on and the later pm_runtime_get*()
> and pm_runtime_put*() calls will be balanced.  Of course, in that case the
> pm_runtime_get_noresume() in sh_mobile_lcdc_probe() won't be necessary any
> more.  Am I overlooking anything?

So for drivers that want to access hardware from .probe(), calling
pm_runtime_resume() after pm_runtime_enable() in should be enough?

Thanks for your help!

/ magnus