Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

[Ulf Hansson]

On 12 November 2015 at 02:06, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:03:52 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 11 November 2015 at 00:57, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> +Rafael, Alan
>> >>
>> >> On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Ulf,
>> >> >
>> >
>> > [cut]
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The problem is that the runtime PM status of the device isn't
>> >> >> correctly updated at ->remove(). The effect is that the the
>> >> >> pm_runtime_get_sync() in ->probe() at re-bind will *not* trigger the
>> >> >> ->runtime_resume() callbacks to be invoked, as the runtime PM core
>> >> >> believes the device is already runtime resumed.
>> >> >
>> >> > So that's where it should be fixed?
>> >>
>> >> That would be a more generic approach, although I am not sure how the
>> >> driver/PM core should be able to take the correct decision in this
>> >> phase. Devices may be runtime PM managed also without a driver bound.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps when __device_release_driver() finds a bounded driver for the
>> >> device, it could after all actions been performed to unbind the
>> >> driver, check if runtime PM is enabled. If it isn't, it could set the
>> >> runtime PM status to suspended!?
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea if that would introduce other issues as it would kind
>> >> of force the runtime PM status of the device to suspend, without
>> >> actually knowing if it's the correct thing to do.
>> >
>> > IMO, that needs to depend on the bus type.  If the bus type has a way
>> > to manage PM for devices without drivers, it should be allowed to do so.
>>
>> By following my suggestion above, we would allow the bus/driver's
>> ->remove() to manage whether runtime PM should be enabled/disabled for
>> the device, before __device_release_driver() checks that.
>> Don't you think that the driver core could rely on that information?
>>
>> I realize that it would be a kind of policy decision for runtime PM,
>> but it's quite similar as when register/unregister devices when we set
>> the runtime PM status to suspended.
>
> OK
>
> If we did that, all devices that had just been unbound from their drivers
> and had runtime PM disabled after that would be set to "suspended" by the
> core, right?

Yes, that's the idea. I will send a patch we can test.

>
> If that helps, I don't really have objections.
>

Thanks!

Kind regards
Uffe
--
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/