Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/exynos: Use device dependency links to control runtime pm
From: Lukas Wunner
Date: Sat Nov 19 2016 - 06:10:41 EST
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:27:12AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 2016-11-07 22:47, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > If so
> > why? If this issue is present also on systems that only use ACPI is
> > this possibly due to an ACPI firmware bug or the lack of some semantics
> > in ACPI to express ordering in a better way? If the issue is device
> > tree related only is this due to the lack of semantics in device tree
> > to express some more complex dependency ?
> The main feature of device links that is used in this patch is enabling
> runtime pm dependency between Exynos SYSMMU controller (called it client
> device) and the device, for which it implements DMA address translation
> (called master device). The assumptions are following:
> 1. master device driver is completely unaware of the Exynos SYSMMU presence,
> IOMMU is transparently hooked up and managed by DMA-mapping framework
> 2. SYSMMU belongs to the same power domain as it's master device
> 3. SYSMMU is optional, master device can fully operate without it, with
> simple DMA address translation (DMA address == physical address)
> 4. Master device implements runtime pm, what in turn causes respective
> power domain to be turned on/off
> 5. DMA-mapping and IOMMU frameworks provides no calls to notify SYSMMU
> when its master device is performing DMA operations, so SYSMMU has
> to be runtime active
> 6. Currently SYSMMU always sets its runtime pm status to active after
> attaching to its master device to ensure proper hardware state. This
> prevents power domain to be turned off, even when master device sets
> its runtime pm status to suspended.
> 7. Exynos SYSMMU has to be runtime active at the same time when its
> master device is runtime active to it to perform DMA operations and
> allow the power domain to be turned off, when master device is
> runtime suspended.
> 8. The terms of device links, Exynos SYSMMU is a 'consumer' and master
> device is a 'supplier'.
You seem to have mixed up the consumer and supplier in point 8 above.
Your code is such that the SYSMMU is the supplier and the master device
is the consumer:
device_link_add(dev, data->sysmmu, DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME);
Prototype of device_link_add:
struct device_link *device_link_add(struct device *consumer,
struct device *supplier,
Your code is correct, only point 8 above is wrong.