linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdX_mAd1PVv5_UCJJZ2U5EjYUbqQ36zaEgP5KdUuZiGQMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:55 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	Linux-SH <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cao Minh Hiep <cm-hiep@...so.co.jp>,
	Dung：人ソ <nv-dung@...so.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi Ulf,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto
>> <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com> wrote:
>>> From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
>>>
>>> It is using pm_runtime_get_sync() on probe(). Let's use
>>> pm_runtime_put_sync() instead of pm_runtime_put(). Otherwise thermal
>>> sensor doesn't work after unbind/re-bind
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c
>>> index 13d01ed..f7cf2d7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c
>>> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ static int rcar_thermal_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>                 thermal_zone_device_unregister(priv->zone);
>>>         }
>>>
>>> -       pm_runtime_put(dev);
>>> +       pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
>>>         pm_runtime_disable(dev);
>
> For the reasons explained by Geert, this is to me also a "workaround".
>
> I would replace pm_runtime_put() and pm_runtime_disable() with a call
> to pm_runtime_force_suspend().
>
> In that way, you will make sure you device get runtime suspended
> (clock domain will gate the clock). Additionally, the runtime PM
> status will properly reflect the status of the device.

That still sounds like a workaround to me, which we have to apply to all
drivers relying on Runtime PM?

>> With a bit more debugging info, this is the difference between the failing
>> and the "fixed" cases:
>>
>>  unbind:
>>
>> +rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: pm_clk_suspend()
>> +renesas-cpg-mssr e6150000.clock-controller: MSTP 522/thermal OFF
>>  rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: removing from PM domain clock-controller
>>  pm_genpd_remove_device: Remove e61f0000.thermal from clock-controller
>> -renesas-cpg-mssr e6150000.clock-controller: MSTP 522/thermal OFF
>>
>>  bind:
>>
>>  rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: adding to PM domain clock-controller
>>  __pm_genpd_add_device: Add e61f0000.thermal to clock-controller
>>  rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: Clock thermal con_id (null) managed by
>> runtime PM.
>> -rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: thermal sensor was broken
>> +rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: pm_clk_resume()
>> +renesas-cpg-mssr e6150000.clock-controller: MSTP 522/thermal ON
>>  rcar_thermal e61f0000.thermal: 1 sensor probed
>>
>> In the failing case, pm_clk_suspend() is not called, and turning off the
>> module clock is thus delayed until removal of the device from the clock
>> domain.
>> But as pm_clk_suspend() wasn't called, the device isn't correctly resumed on
>> rebind, and the module clock is never re-enabled, leading to a failure.
>>
>> Ulf, what do you think?
>
> I totally agree on your analyse.
>
> The problem is that the runtime PM status of the device isn't
> correctly updated at ->remove(). The effect is that the the
> pm_runtime_get_sync() in ->probe() at re-bind will *not* trigger the
> ->runtime_resume() callbacks to be invoked, as the runtime PM core
> believes the device is already runtime resumed.

So that's where it should be fixed?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/