linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:46:43 +0000
From:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for
 IRQ chips


On 13/11/15 20:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off
>>> independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't
>>> using RPM. 
>>
>> That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers
>> invoke RPM then that will not be the case.
> 
> You need a very proper description of how that domain is working. If
> all devices are idle, it's not necessary correct to power down the
> irqchip as is might serve other devices as well.

Agreed. The irqchip should only be powered down if there are no
interrupts in-use/requested. Runtime-pm will keep a reference count for
all requested IRQs.

> OTOH, if it can be powered down then all idle devices need to release
> the irq they requested because request_irq() would hold a ref on the
> power domain.

Yes.

> I have no idea how you can describe that proper.

Do you mean properly describe the interaction between runtime-pm and the
irqchip?

>>> Is there a longer-term plan to handle the irqchips as a "normal" device
>>> and use RPM?  IMO, that approach would be helpful even for irqchips that
>>> share power domains with CPUs, since there are efforts working towards
>>> using genpd/RPM to manage CPUs/clusters.
>>
>> That would ideal. However, the majority of irqchips today
>> create/register them with IRQCHIP_DECLARE() and not as "normal" devices.
>> Therefore, I was reluctant to add "struct device" to the irqchip
>> structure. However, if this is what you would prefer and Thomas is ok
>> with it, then that would be fine with me.
> 
> I have no objections against that, but how is the 'struct device'
> going to be initialized?

It would be initialised by the irqchip driver. However, it would be
optional. The genirq core could simply check to see if the chip->dev
member is initialised and if so enable runtime-pm.

Cheers
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/