[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bcf363db-8fff-4fb1-b29e-300f7b8bc090@prolan.hu>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:11:29 +0100
From: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Varshini
Rajendran" <varshini.rajendran@...rochip.com>, Tudor Ambarus
<tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
<linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "Len
Brown" <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, "Alexander
Dahl" <ada@...rsis.com>, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Claudiu Beznea
<claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] pm: runtime: Add new devm functions
Hi,
On 2025. 03. 27. 15:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> /-- devm_pm_runtime_get_noresume()
> | /-- devm_{pm_runtime_set_active() + pm_runtime_enable() (in this order)}
> | | pm_runtime_use_autosuspend()
> | |
> | | Note that the device cannot be suspended here unless its
> runtime PM usage
> | | counter is dropped, in which it would need to be bumped up
> again later to
> | | retain the balance.
> | |
> | \-> pm_runtime_disable() + pm_runtime_set_suspended() (in this order)
> \-> pm_runtime_put_noidle()
Ah, so basically what I've done originally, just calling
`devm_pm_runtime_get_noresume()` _first_ instead of _last_, right?
> And pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() is not really necessary after
> disabling runtime PM.
It was done this way in devm_pm_runtime_enable() already, see commit
b4060db9251f ("PM: runtime: Have devm_pm_runtime_enable() handle
pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()"). I didn't change anything
behaviourally there.
> Also, I think that the driver could be fixed without introducing the
> new devm_ stuff which would be way simpler, so why don't you do that
> and then think about devm_?
Sure, I could quick-fix this, go through all the possible error paths
and whatnot and ref-count in my head, but it doesn't fix the underlying
problem: in order to properly use PM, you have to do a bunch of calls in
some set order, then undo them in reverse order on error and remove --
exactly the thing devm was designed for, and exactly the thing where
it's easy for a human to forget one case by accident. Thus I prefer to
use the *real* solution, devm.
Bence
Powered by blists - more mailing lists