[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141107121320.GA20419@amd>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:13:20 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] amba: Don't unprepare the clocks if device driver
wants IRQ safe runtime PM
On Wed 2014-11-05 09:42:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On wto, 2014-11-04 at 21:18 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Tue 2014-11-04 13:52:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > The AMBA bus driver defines runtime Power Management functions which
> > > disable and unprepare AMBA bus clock. This is problematic for runtime PM
> > > because unpreparing a clock might sleep so it is not interrupt safe.
> > >
> > > However some drivers may want to implement runtime PM functions in
> > > interrupt-safe way (see pm_runtime_irq_safe()). In such case the AMBA
> > > bus driver should only disable/enable the clock in runtime suspend and
> > > resume callbacks.
> >
> >
> >
> > > /*
> > > * Hooks to provide runtime PM of the pclk (bus clock). It is safe to
> > > * enable/disable the bus clock at runtime PM suspend/resume as this
> > > @@ -95,8 +102,14 @@ static int amba_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > struct amba_device *pcdev = to_amba_device(dev);
> > > int ret = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev);
> > >
> > > - if (ret == 0 && dev->driver)
> > > - clk_disable_unprepare(pcdev->pclk);
> > > + if (ret == 0 && dev->driver) {
> > > + pcdev->irq_safe = get_pm_runtime_irq_safe(dev);
> > > +
> > > + if (pcdev->irq_safe)
> > > + clk_disable(pcdev->pclk);
> > > + else
> > > + clk_disable_unprepare(pcdev->pclk);
> > > + }
> >
> > So you can handle the case of !pcdev->irq_safe. What is the penalty
> > for always assuming !pcdev->irq_safe?
>
> The penalty (for pl330 driver) would be that the runtime resume/suspend
> cannot happen from atomic context
> => pm_runtime_get_sync() cannot be called from atomic context
> => complete rework of runtime PM for pl330 DMA driver because now
> one of pm_runtime_get_sync() calls is in device_issue_pending
> callback which may not sleep. And by "rework" I also mean that
> I do not know how to do this... yet.
I still don't get it. You say that you don't know how to handle
!pcdev->irq_safe case... Yet have code above that tries to handle it.
If that case can't be sanely handled, I'd expect
BUG_ON(!pcdev->irq_safe).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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