[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1564097.buIA8Wdn8f@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 03:15:18 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] dmaengine: tegra-apb: Correct runtime-pm usage
On Wednesday, November 04, 2015 08:59:43 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:25:09PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> >>>>> /* Enable clock before accessing register */
> >> >>>>> - ret = tegra_dma_runtime_resume(dev);
> >> >>>>> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If you are runtime suspended then core will runtime resume you before
> >> >>>> invoking suspend, so why do we need this
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Is this change now in the mainline? Do you have commit ID for that?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I recall the last time we discussed this that Rafael said that they were
> >> >>> going to do that, but he said as a rule of thumb if you need to resume
> >> >>> it, resume it [0].
> >> >>
> >> >> IIRC this has been always the behaviour, at least I see this when I test the
> >> >> devices
> >> >
> >> > I have been doing some testing today and if the DMA is runtime
> >> > suspended, then I don't see it runtime resumed before suspend is called.
> >> >
> >> > Can you elborate on "at least I see this when I test the devices"? What
> >> > are you looking at? Are you using kernel function tracers in some way?
> >>
> >> The PM core does a _get_noresume()[1] which tries to prevent runtime
> >> suspends *during* a system suspend. However, the PM core should not be
> >> doing an actual runtime resume of the device, so if the device is
> >> already runtime suspended, it will not be runtime resumed by the core,
> >> so if the driver needs it to be runtime resumed, it needs to do it
> >> itself.
> >
> > + Rafael
> >
> > This is contrariry to what I see, If my driver is runtime suspended and on
> > suspend, it gets runtime resumed and then suspended
>
> Since I was late to the thread, can you explain what kind of driver and
> on what bus type you're seeing this behavior?
>
> It could be that your bus-type is doing something, but I don't think it
> should be the PM core.
Right.
Bus types do that, the core doesn't. The ACPI PM domain does that too
for some devices.
So Vinod, more details, please.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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