Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] PM / Runtime: Allow accessing irq_safe if no PM_RUNTIME

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> > Well, that is a good reason to introduce a wrapper around power.irq_safe in my
> > view.
> > 
> > And define the wrapper so that it always returns false for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> > unset.
> > 
> > This way not only you wouldn't need to move the flag from under the #ifdef,
> > but also you would make the compiler skip the relevant pieces of code
> > entiretly for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME unset.
> 
> Few days ago I would be happy with your opinion :), but know I think
> this is better solution than wrapper. Consider case:
> 1. PM_RUNTIME unset.
> 2. System suspends.
> 3. The pl330 in its suspend callback calls force_runtime_suspend which
> leads us to amba/bus.
> 4. The amba/bus.c in runtime suspend checks for irq_safe (it is FALSE),
> so it disables and unprepares the clock.
> 5. The pl330 in probe requested irq_safe so it assumes amba/bus will
> only disable the clock. So the pl330 unprepares the clock. Again.

To me, this sounds like a good reason to avoid using 
force_runtime_suspend().  In fact, it sounds like a good reason to 
avoid relying on the runtime PM mechanism to handle non-runtime-PM 
things (like a system suspend callback).  If CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME isn't 
enabled then the runtime PM stack simply should not be used.

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/