Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM / Runtime: let rpm_resume fail if rpm disabled and device suspended.

[Alan Stern]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, Allen Yu wrote:

> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
>   repeat:
>  	if (dev->power.runtime_error)
>  		retval = -EINVAL;
> -	else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended
> +	else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && !dev->power.is_suspended
>  	    && dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
>  		retval = 1;

For reasons having nothing to do with Allen's suggested change, I
wonder if we shouldn't replace this line with something like:

-	else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended
+	else if (dev->power.disable > 0 && !dev->power.is_suspended
	    && dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
		retval = 1;

It seems that I've been bitten by this several times in the past.  
When a device is disabled for runtime PM, and more or less permanently
stuck in the RPM_ACTIVE state, calls to pm_runtime_resume() or
pm_runtime_get_sync() shouldn't fail.

For example, suppose some devices of a certain type support runtime 
power management but others don't.  We naturally want to call 
pm_runtime_disable() for the ones that don't.  But we also want the 
same driver to work for all the devices, which means that 
pm_runtime_get_sync() should return success -- otherwise the driver 
will think that something has gone wrong.

Rafael, what do you think?

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/