Re: [PATCH 0/12] PM / sleep: Driver flags for system suspend/resume

[Grygorii Strashko]

On 10/18/2017 09:11 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>>
>>> The reason why pm_runtime_force_* needs to respects the hierarchy of
>>> the RPM callbacks, is because otherwise it can't safely update the
>>> runtime PM status of the device.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow this requirement.  Why is that so?
> 
> If the PM domain controls some resources for the device in its RPM
> callbacks and the driver controls some other resources in its RPM
> callbacks - then these resources needs to be managed together.
> 
> This follows the behavior of when a regular call to
> pm_runtime_get|put(), triggers the RPM callbacks to be invoked.
> 
>>
>>> And updating the runtime PM status of
>>> the device is required to manage the optimized behavior during system
>>> resume (avoiding to unnecessary resume devices).
>>
>> Well, OK.  The runtime PM status of the device after system resume should
>> better reflect its physical state.
>>
>> [The physical state of the device may not be under the control of the
>> kernel in some cases, like in S3 resume on some systems that reset
>> devices in the firmware and so on, but let's set that aside.]
>>
>> However, for the runtime PM status of the device may still reflect its state
>> if, say, a ->resume_early of the middle layer is called during resume along
>> with a driver's ->runtime_resume.  That still can produce the right state
>> of the device and all depends on the middle layer.
>>
>> On the other hand, as I said before, using a middle-layer ->runtime_suspend
>> during a system sleep transition may be outright incorrect, say if device
>> wakeup settings need to be adjusted by the middle layer (which is the
>> case for some of them).
>>
>> Of course, if the middle layer expects the driver to point its
>> system-wide PM callbacks to pm_runtime_force_*, then that's how it goes,
>> but the drivers working with this particular middle layer generally
>> won't work with other middle layers and may interact incorrectly
>> with parents and/or children using the other middle layers.
>>
>> I guess the problem boils down to having a common set of expectations
>> on the driver side and on the middle layer side allowing different
>> combinations of these to work together.
> 
> Yes!
> 
>>
>>> Besides the AMBA case, I also realized that we are dealing with PM
>>> clocks in the genpd case. For this, genpd relies on the that runtime
>>> PM status of the device properly reflects the state of the HW, during
>>> system-wide PM.
>>>
>>> In other words, if the driver would change the runtime PM status of
>>> the device, without respecting the hierarchy of the runtime PM
>>> callbacks, it would lead to that genpd starts taking wrong decisions
>>> while managing the PM clocks during system-wide PM. So in case you
>>> intend to change pm_runtime_force_* this needs to be addressed too.
>>
>> I've just looked at the genpd code and quite frankly I'm not sure how this
>> works, but I'll figure this out. :-)
> 
> You may think of it as genpd's RPM callback controls some device
> clocks, while the driver control some other device resources (pinctrl
> for example) from its RPM callback.
> 
> These resources needs to managed together, similar to as I described above.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Absolutely agree about the different wake-up settings. However, these
>>> issues can be addressed also when using pm_runtime_force_*, at least
>>> in general, but then not for PCI.
>>
>> Well, not for the ACPI PM domain too.
>>
>> In general, not if the wakeup settings are adjusted by the middle layer.
> 
> Correct!
> 
> To use pm_runtime_force* for these cases, one would need some
> additional information exchange between the driver and the
> middle-layer.
> 
>>
>>> Regarding hibernation, honestly that's not really my area of
>>> expertise. Although, I assume the middle-layer and driver can treat
>>> that as a separate case, so if it's not suitable to use
>>> pm_runtime_force* for that case, then they shouldn't do it.
>>
>> Well, agreed.
>>
>> In some simple cases, though, driver callbacks can be reused for hibernation
>> too, so it would be good to have a common way to do that too, IMO.
> 
> Okay, that makes sense!
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, quite so often other middle layers interact with PCI directly or
>>>> indirectly (eg. a platform device may be a child or a consumer of a PCI
>>>> device) and some optimizations need to take that into account (eg. parents
>>>> generally need to be accessible when their childres are resumed and so on).
>>>
>>> A device's parent becomes informed when changing the runtime PM status
>>> of the device via pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume(), as those calls
>>> pm_runtime_set_suspended|active().
>>
>> This requires the parent driver or middle layer to look at the reference
>> counter and understand it the same way as pm_runtime_force_*.
>>
>>> In case that isn't that sufficient, what else is needed? Perhaps you can
>>> point me to an example so I can understand better?
>>
>> Say you want to leave the parent suspended after system resume, but the
>> child drivers use pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume().  The parent would then
>> need to use pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume() too, no?
> 
> Actually no.
> 
> Currently the other options of "deferring resume" (not using
> pm_runtime_force_*), is either using the "direct_complete" path or
> similar to the approach you took for the i2c designware driver.
> 
> Both cases should play nicely in combination of a child being managed
> by pm_runtime_force_*. That's because only when the parent device is
> kept runtime suspended during system suspend, resuming can be
> deferred.
> 
> That means, if the resume of the parent is deferred, so will the also
> the resume of the child.
> 
>>
>>> For a PCI consumer device those will of course have to play by the rules of PCI.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, the majority of the "other subsystems/middle-layers" you've talked
>>>> about so far don't provide any PM callbacks to be invoked by pm_runtime_force_*,
>>>> so question is how representative they really are.
>>>
>>> That's the point. We know pm_runtime_force_* works nicely for the
>>> trivial middle-layer cases.
>>
>> In which cases the middle-layer callbacks don't exist, so it's just like
>> reusing driver callbacks directly. :-)

I'd like to ask you clarify one point here and provide some info which I hope can be useful - 
what's exactly means  "trivial middle-layer cases"?

Is it when systems use "drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c - Generic clock manipulation PM callbacks"
as dev_pm_domain (arm davinci/keystone), or OMAP device framework struct dev_pm_domain omap_device_pm_domain
 (arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c) or static const struct dev_pm_ops tegra_aconnect_pm_ops?

if yes all above have PM runtime callbacks.


-- 
regards,
-grygorii