Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] PM / Domains: Extend API pm_genpd_dev_need_restore to use restore types

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:25:09 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
> amit daniel kachhap <amit.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> On 2014-12-13 17:51, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> >>>> Instead of using bool to restore suspended devices initially, use flags
> >>>> like GPD_DEV_SUSPEND_INIT, GPD_DEV_RESTORE_INIT and GPD_DEV_RESTORE_FORCE.
> >>>> The first two flags will be similar to the existing true/false functionality.
> >>>> The third flag may be used to force restore of suspended devices
> >>>> whenever their associated power domain is turned on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Currently, PD power off function powers off all the associated unused
> >>>> devices. The functionality added in this patch is similar to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> This feature may be used for those devices which are always in ON state
> >>>> if the PD associated with them is ON but may need local runtime resume
> >>>> and suspend during PD On/Off. These devices (like clock) may not implement
> >>>> complete pm_runtime calls such as pm_runtime_get/pm_runtime_put due to
> >>>> subsystems interaction behaviour or any other reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> The model works like,
> >>>>      DEV1 (Attaches itself with PD but no calls to pm_runtime_get and
> >>>>      /       pm_runtime_put. Its local runtime_suspend/resume is invoked via
> >>>>     /        GPD_DEV_RESTORE_FORCE option)
> >>>>    /
> >>>> PD -- DEV2 (Implements complete PM runtime and calls pm_runtime_get and
> >>>>    \ pm_runtime_put. This in turn invokes PD On/Off)
> >>>>     \
> >>>>      DEV3 (Similar to DEV1)
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The idea of adding new gen_pd flag and reusing runtime pm calls intead
> >>> of additional notifiers looks promising, but I have some doubts.
> >>
> >> I agree, this is better than notifiers, but I have some doubts too.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >>
> >>> don't see any guarantee that devices with GPD_DEV_RESTORE_FORCE flag
> >>> will be suspended after all "normal" devices and restored before
> >>> them. Without such assumption it will be hard to use this approach for
> >>> iommu related activities, because device might need to use (in its
> >>> suspend/resume callbacks) the functionality provided by the other
> >>> device with GPD_DEV_RESTORE_FORCE flag. Maybe some additional flags
> >>> like suspend/resume priority (or more flags) will solve somehow this
> >>> dependency.
> >>
> >> At a deeper level, the problem with this approach is that this is more
> >> generically a runtime PM dependency problem, not a genpd problem.  For
> >> example, what happens when the same kind of dependency exists on a
> >> platform using a custom PM domain instead of genpd (like ACPI.) ?
> >
> > This patch does not try to solve runtime PM dependencies between
> > devices. As an example, if there are three devices D1, D2, D3 in a
> > power domain. Device D3 would update the power domain state
> > requirement using runtime PM API but devices D1 and D2 do not want to
> > control the domain but just want to be notified when the power domain
> > state changes.
> 
> Yes, I understand that.  
> 
> The question is: what do you do when you have the same dependency
> problem and you're not using genpd (for example, some SoCs have
> implmeented their own PM domains, and ACPI devices are managed by their
> own PM domain, not genpd.)
> 
> >> What's needed to solve this problem is a generalized way to have runtime
> >> PM dependencies between devices.  Runtime PM already automatically
> >> handles parent devices as one type of dependent device (e.g. a parent
> >> device needs to be runtime PM resumed before its child.)  So what's
> >> needed is a generic way to other PM dependencies with the runtime PM
> >> core (not the genpd core.)
> >
> > Considering the example above with three devices, device D1 and D2 are
> > passive components in this power domain. These devices only need to
> > know the state changes of the power domains but would not control the
> > power domain themselves nor put forth constraints in the power domain
> > state changes. So I did not clearly understand as to how this example
> > could be solved by introducing changes in runtime PM core.
> 
> Your solution only solves the problems for devices managed by genpd.
> 
> If I understood your example correctly, what you really want to solve
> this problem more generically is to be able to tell the runtime PM core
> that D3 has a dependency on D1 and D2.  Then, whenver the runtime PM
> core is doing get/put operations for D3, it needs to also do them for D1
> and D2.
> 
> This will accomplish the same as your proposed approach, but work for
> any devices in any PM domains.

Plus, it is not limited to runtime PM, really.  It affects system suspend
too.


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/