[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2385996.Tx2Do9TUNJ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:09:16 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX] PM: Fix active child counting when disabled and forbidden
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:49:04 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > > > Devices will be disabled if the PCI driver is unbound from the PCI
> > > > device.
> > >
> > > Yes. But without a PCI driver, nothing will call
> > > pm_runtime_set_suspended.
> >
> > pm_runtime_set_suspended will be called in pci_device_remove or error
> > path of local_pci_probe.
>
> Yes, okay. But that's what we want. Unused, driverless PCI devices
> shouldn't force their parents to remain at full power.
>
> > > And even if something does call
> > > pm_runtime_set_suspended, it's still not a problem -- the device can't
> > > be used without a driver.
> >
> > The VGA device can be used without a driver.
>
> Ah, right, that's your _real_ problem. You should have mentioned this
> in the original Changelog for the patch.
>
> Rafael, this does need to be fixed.
Yup.
> The PCI subsystem assumes that
> driverless devices are not in use, so they are disabled for runtime PM
> and marked as suspended. This is not appropriate for VGA devices,
> which can indeed be used without a driver.
>
> I'm not sure what the best solution is. Maybe we should Ying's
> proposal a step farther:
>
> Make pm_runtime_set_suspended() fail if runtime PM is
> forbidden.
>
> Make pm_runtime_forbid() call pm_runtime_set_active()
> (and do a runtime resume of the parent) if disable_depth > 0.
I'd prefer this one. The callers of pm_runtime_forbid() may actually
reasonably expect something like this to happen.
> Make the PCI runtime-idle routine call
> pm_runtime_set_suspended() if disable_depth > 0. Or maybe
> do this for all devices, in the runtime PM core.
That would mean calling it on every call to pm_runtime_put() and friends
which seems to be a bit wasteful.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists