Re: [RFC PATCH V2 3/8] genirq: Add runtime power management support for IRQ chips
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Wed Jan 20 2016 - 10:32:05 EST
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 18/01/16 14:47, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> +/* Inline functions for support of irq chips that require runtime pm */
> >> +static inline int chip_pm_get(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > Why does these new get/put functions need to be inline functions and
> > thus defined in the header file? Perhaps move them to manage.c are
> > better?
> They don't have to be, and so I can move them.
Yes, please make them proper functions. The proper place for them is chip.c
> > This won't play nicely when CONFIG_PM is unset, as pm_runtime_put()
> > would return -ENOSYS. In such cases I guess you would like to ignore
> > the error!?
> Ok, yes good point.
So you need a CONFIG_PM variant and stubs which return 0 for the !PM case.
> >> @@ -1116,6 +1116,10 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
> >> if (!try_module_get(desc->owner))
> >> return -ENODEV;
> >> + ret = chip_pm_get(desc);
> >> + if (ret < 0)
> >> + return ret;
That leaks the module refcount.
> > I don't think using __free_irq() is the correct place to decrease the
> > runtime PM usage count. It will keep the irqchip runtime resumed even
> > if there are no irqs enabled for it.
> > Instead I would rather allow the irqchip to be runtime suspended, when
> > there are no irqs enabled on it.
Which is a no no, as you might lose interrupts that way. We disable interrupts
lazy, i.e. we do not mask them. So no, you cannot do that from
> This may appear ugly, but for something like this, we may need to have a
> separate enable/disable API, such as
> enable_irq_lazy()/disable_irq_lazy() which could be used to runtime
> suspend/resume the chip and must not be used in critical sections.
enable_irq_lazy is a misnomer. enable_irq_pm or such might be acceptable.
But before we go there I really want to see a proper use case for such