[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <R1PC5R.M6H5LAMRKZ9P@crapouillou.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 17:39:27 +0000
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, list@...ndingux.net,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] PM: core: Remove DEFINE_UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS()
macro
Le ven., janv. 7 2022 at 17:40:57 +0100, Ulf Hansson
<ulf.hansson@...aro.org> a écrit :
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 17:37, Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ulf,
>>
>> Le ven., janv. 7 2022 at 17:26:07 +0100, Ulf Hansson
>> <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> a écrit :
>> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 19:29, Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The deprecated UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS() macro uses the provided
>> >> callbacks
>> >> for both runtime PM and system sleep, which is very likely to
>> be a
>> >> mistake, as a system sleep can be triggered while a given
>> device is
>> >> already PM-suspended, which would cause the suspend callback to
>> be
>> >> called twice.
>> >>
>> >> The amount of users of UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS() is also tiny (16
>> >> occurences) compared to the number of places where
>> >> SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() is used with
>> pm_runtime_force_suspend()
>> >> and
>> >> pm_runtime_force_resume(), which makes me think that none of
>> these
>> >> cases
>> >> are actually valid.
>> >>
>> >> As this macro is currently unused, remove it before someone
>> starts
>> >> to
>> >> use it in yet another invalid case.
>> >
>> > I assume you refer to DEFINE_UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS here. Can you
>> > perhaps make that more clear?
>>
>> I can.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
>> >> Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Notes:
>> >> v2: No change
>> >>
>> >> include/linux/pm.h | 19 ++++++-------------
>> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/pm.h b/include/linux/pm.h
>> >> index e1e9402180b9..31bbaafb06d2 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/pm.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/pm.h
>> >> @@ -366,6 +366,12 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops name = { \
>> >> SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> +/* Deprecated. Use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() instead. */
>> >> +#define SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(name, suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
>> >> +const struct dev_pm_ops __maybe_unused name = { \
>> >> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> /*
>> >> * Use this for defining a set of PM operations to be used in
>> all
>> >> situations
>> >> * (system suspend, hibernation or runtime PM).
>> >> @@ -379,19 +385,6 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops name = { \
>> >> * .resume_early(), to the same routines as .runtime_suspend()
>> and
>> >> * .runtime_resume(), respectively (and analogously for
>> >> hibernation).
>> >> */
>> >> -#define DEFINE_UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS(name, suspend_fn,
>> resume_fn,
>> >> idle_fn) \
>> >> -static const struct dev_pm_ops name = { \
>> >> - SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
>> >> - RUNTIME_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn, idle_fn) \
>> >> -}
>> >> -
>> >> -/* Deprecated. Use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() instead. */
>> >> -#define SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(name, suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
>> >> -const struct dev_pm_ops __maybe_unused name = { \
>> >> - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
>> >> -}
>> >> -
>> >> -/* Deprecated. Use DEFINE_UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS() instead. */
>> >
>> > Shouldn't this macro be deprecated any more?
>>
>> I can only deprecate it if there is an alternative for it. The
>> alternative is DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS() which is added in patch
>> 4/6.
>
> I don't think we need an immediate alternative to leave it
> deprecated, do we?
>
> My point is, a user can still combine the macros in a way so that it
> doesn't need to use the UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS.
Ok. I'll leave it deprecated in that patch then.
Cheers,
-Paul
>> >> #define UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS(name, suspend_fn, resume_fn,
>> idle_fn)
>> >> \
>> >> const struct dev_pm_ops __maybe_unused name = { \
>> >> SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
>> >> --
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists