linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] eeprom: at24: enable runtime pm support

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: <20170830211938.3m4xdwlfq5yozymq@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:19:38 +0300
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
To:     Divagar Mohandass <divagar.mohandass@...el.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, wsa@...-dreams.de,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rajmohan.mani@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] eeprom: at24: enable runtime pm support

Hi Divagar,

Thanks for the update.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:35:40PM +0530, Divagar Mohandass wrote:
> Currently the device is kept in D0, there is an opportunity
> to save power by enabling runtime pm.
> 
> Device can be daisy chained from PMIC and we can't rely on I2C core
> for auto resume/suspend. Driver will decide when to resume/suspend.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Divagar Mohandass <divagar.mohandass@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> index 2199c42..65a7d83 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  #include <linux/i2c.h>
>  #include <linux/nvmem-provider.h>
>  #include <linux/platform_data/at24.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>  
>  /*
>   * I2C EEPROMs from most vendors are inexpensive and mostly interchangeable.
> @@ -501,11 +502,21 @@ static ssize_t at24_eeprom_write_i2c(struct at24_data *at24, const char *buf,
>  static int at24_read(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val, size_t count)
>  {
>  	struct at24_data *at24 = priv;
> +	struct i2c_client *client;
>  	char *buf = val;
> +	int ret;
>  
>  	if (unlikely(!count))
>  		return count;
>  
> +	client = at24_translate_offset(at24, &off);
> +
> +	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(&client->dev);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		pm_runtime_put_noidle(&client->dev);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Read data from chip, protecting against concurrent updates
>  	 * from this host, but not from other I2C masters.
> @@ -518,6 +529,7 @@ static int at24_read(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val, size_t count)
>  		status = at24->read_func(at24, buf, off, count);
>  		if (status < 0) {
>  			mutex_unlock(&at24->lock);
> +			pm_runtime_put(&client->dev);
>  			return status;
>  		}
>  		buf += status;
> @@ -527,17 +539,29 @@ static int at24_read(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val, size_t count)
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&at24->lock);
>  
> +	pm_runtime_put(&client->dev);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static int at24_write(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val, size_t count)
>  {
>  	struct at24_data *at24 = priv;
> +	struct i2c_client *client;
>  	char *buf = val;
> +	int ret;
>  
>  	if (unlikely(!count))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	client = at24_translate_offset(at24, &off);
> +
> +	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(&client->dev);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		pm_runtime_put_noidle(&client->dev);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Write data to chip, protecting against concurrent updates
>  	 * from this host, but not from other I2C masters.
> @@ -550,6 +574,7 @@ static int at24_write(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val, size_t count)
>  		status = at24->write_func(at24, buf, off, count);
>  		if (status < 0) {
>  			mutex_unlock(&at24->lock);
> +			pm_runtime_put(&client->dev);
>  			return status;
>  		}
>  		buf += status;
> @@ -559,6 +584,8 @@ static int at24_write(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val, size_t count)
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&at24->lock);
>  
> +	pm_runtime_put(&client->dev);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -743,6 +770,14 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>  
>  	i2c_set_clientdata(client, at24);
>  
> +	/* enable runtime pm */
> +	pm_runtime_get_noresume(&client->dev);
> +	err = pm_runtime_set_active(&client->dev);
> +	if (err < 0)
> +		goto err_clients;

Btw. I don't think pm_runtime_set_active() can fail here. In other words
it'd be fine to ignore the return value.

> +
> +	pm_runtime_enable(&client->dev);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Perform a one-byte test read to verify that the
>  	 * chip is functional.
> @@ -753,6 +788,8 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>  		goto err_clients;

I suppose the runtime PM state is re-initialised for a device when a driver
is probed, but it'd still be nice to decrement the use count if this fails.
You should also disable PM runtime if probe fails and set the device
suspended again.

Same for other error cases. I think you'll need a new label.

>  	}
>  
> +	pm_runtime_put(&client->dev);
> +
>  	at24->nvmem_config.name = dev_name(&client->dev);
>  	at24->nvmem_config.dev = &client->dev;
>  	at24->nvmem_config.read_only = !writable;
> @@ -810,6 +847,9 @@ static int at24_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	for (i = 1; i < at24->num_addresses; i++)
>  		i2c_unregister_device(at24->client[i]);
>  
> +	pm_runtime_disable(&client->dev);
> +	pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@....fi