Re: [PATCH v2] ALSA: hda/tegra: enable clock during probe

[Thierry Reding]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:46:20PM +0530, Sameer Pujar wrote:
> 
> On 2/1/2019 4:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:30:24 PM CET Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > --Pk/CTwBz1VvfPIDp
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > Content-Disposition: inline
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 01:10:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:59 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:46:54 +0100,
> > > > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:21 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:05:30 +0100,
> > > > > > > Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:40:42PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > > [cut]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly the code, the pm domain is already ac=
> > > tivated
> > > > > > > > > at calling driver's probe callback.
> > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, the domain will also be powered off again a=
> > > fter
> > > > > > > > probe finished, unless the device grabs a runtime PM reference. T=
> > > his is
> > > > > > > > what happens via the dev->pm_domain->sync() call after successful=
> > >   probe
> > > > > > > > of a driver.
> > > > > > > Ah, a good point.  This can be a problem with a probe work like this
> > > > > > > case.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It seems to me like it's not a very well defined case what to do =
> > > when a
> > > > > > > > device needs to be powered up but runtime PM is not enabled.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Adding Rafael and linux-pm, maybe they can provide some guidance =
> > > on what
> > > > > > > > to do in these situations.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > To summarize, what we're debating here is how to handle powering =
> > > up a
> > > > > > > > device if the pm_runtime infrastructure doesn't take care of it. =
> > > Jon's
> > > > > > > > proposal here was, and we use this elsewhere, to do something lik=
> > > e this:
> > > > > > > >        pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> > > > > > > >        if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) {
> > > > > > > >                err =3D foo_runtime_resume(dev);
> > > > > > > >                if (err < 0)
> > > > > > > >                        goto fail;
> > > > > > > >        }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > So basically when runtime PM is not available, we explicitly "res=
> > > ume"
> > > > > > > > the device to power it up.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It seems to me like that's a fairly common problem, so I'm wonder=
> > > ing if
> > > > > > > > there's something that the runtime PM core could do to help with =
> > > this.
> > > > > > > > Or perhaps there's already a way to achieve this that we're all
> > > > > > > > overlooking?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Rafael, any suggestions?
> > > > > > > If any, a common helper would be appreciated, indeed.
> > > > > > I'm not sure that I understand the problem correctly, so let me
> > > > > > restate it the way I understand it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What we're talking about is a driver ->probe() callback.  Runtime PM
> > > > > > is disabled initially and the device is off.  It needs to be powered
> > > > > > up, but the way to do that depends on some configuration of the board
> > > > > > etc., so ideally
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> > > > > > ret =3D pm_runtime_resume(dev);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > should just work, but the question is what to do if runtime PM doesn't
> > > > > > work as expected.  That is, CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is unset?  Or something
> > > > > > else?
> > > > > Yes, the question is how to write the code for both with and without
> > > > > CONFIG_PM (or CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME).
> > > > =20
> > > > This basically is about setup, because after that point all should
> > > > just work in both cases.
> > > > =20
> > > > Personally, I would do
> > > > =20
> > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM)) {
> > > >    do setup based on pm-runtime
> > > > } else {
> > > >    do manual setup
> > > > }
> > > > =20
> > > > > Right now, we have a code like below, pushing the initialization in an
> > > > > async work and let the probe returning quickly.
> > > > > 
> > > > >          hda_tegra_probe() {
> > > > >                  ....
> > > > =20
> > > > So why don't you do
> > > > =20
> > > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM)) {
> > > >    do manual clock setup
> > > > }
> > > > =20
> > > > here?
> > > I think that's exactly what Jon and Sameer were proposing, although the
> > > discussion started primarily because of the way it was done.
> > > 
> > > So basically the idea was to do:
> > > 
> > > 	pm_runtime_enable()
> > > 	if (!pm_runtime_enabled())  /* basically !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) */
> > But why is it any better than checking !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) directly?
> > 
> > > 		hda_runtime_resume()
> > > 
> > > So we're not calling pm_runtime_resume() but rather the driver's
> > > implementation of it. This is to avoid duplicating the code, which under
> > > some circumstances can be fairly long. Duplicating is also error prone
> > > because both instances may not always be in sync.
> > > 
> > > My understanding is that Takashi had reservations about using this kind
> > > of construct because, well, frankly, it looks a little weird.
> > Yes, the way it was originally written above was weird, but is checking
> > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) directly really so weird?
> > 
> > > We'd also likely want to have a similar construct again in the ->remove()
> > > callback to make sure we properly power off the device when it is no longer
> > > needed.
> > Sure.  Again, why don't you make it conditional on IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM)?
> > 
> > > I'm just wondering if perhaps there should be a mechanism in the
> > > core to take care of this,
> > How exactly?  How's the core going to know what to do when CONFIG_PM is
> > disabled?
> > 
> > > because this is basically something that we'd need to do for every single
> > > driver.
> > That is not true.  If the device is alwyas "on" to start with, you don't
> > need to do anything.  That's the case on many systems.
> > 
> > > For example, if !CONFIG_PM couldn't the pm_runtime_enable() function be
> > > modified to do the above?
> > But you'd need to pass a pointer to your hda_runtime_resume() to it at least
> > and how's that simpler than using a simple conditional directly?
> > 
> > > This would be somewhat tricky because drivers
> > > usually use SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS to populate the struct dev_pm_ops and
> > > that would result in an empty structure if !CONFIG_PM, but we could
> > > probably work around that by adding a __SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS that would
> > > never be compiled out for this kind of case. Or such drivers could even
> > > manually set .runtime_suspend and .runtime_resume to make sure they're
> > > always populated.
> > > 
> > > Another way out of this would be to make sure we never run into the case
> > > where runtime PM is disabled. If we always "select PM" on Tegra, then PM
> > > should always be available. But is it guaranteed that runtime PM for the
> > > devices is functional in that case? From a cursory look at the code it
> > > would seem that way.
> > If you select PM, then all of the requisite code should be there.
> > 
> > Alternatively, you can make the driver depend on PM.
> Objective is to have things working with or without CONFIG_PM enabled.
> From previous comments and discussions it appears that there is mixed
> response
> for calling hda_tegra_runtime_resume() or runtime PM APIs in probe() call.
> Need
> to have consensus regarding the best practice to be followed, which would
> eventually
> can be used in other drivers too.
> 
> Rafael is suggesting to use CONFIG_PM check to do manual setup or runtime PM
> setup in probe,
> which would bring back the earlier above mentioned concern.
> 
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM)) {
> do setup based on pm-runtime
> } else {
> ÂÂÂ do manual setup
> }
> Both if/else might end up doing the same here.
> Do we really need CONFIG_PM check here?
> 
> Instead does below proposal appear fine?
> 
> probe() {
> ÂÂÂ hda_tegra_enable_clock();
> }
> 
> probe_work() {
> ÂÂÂ /* hda setup */
> ÂÂÂ . . .
> ÂÂÂ pm_runtime_set_active(); /* initial state as active */
> ÂÂÂ pm_runtime_enable();
> ÂÂÂ return;
> }
> 
> remove() {
> ÂÂÂ pm_runtime_disable();
> ÂÂÂ if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended())
> ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ hda_tegra_runtime_suspend(); /* takes care of both CONFIG_PM
> enable/disable case */
> }
> 
> One of the other concern was, remove() and probe() do not appear to be in
> sync, because in probe() hda_tegra_enable_clock()
> is called and in remove() there is hda_tegra_runtime_suspend() to
> effectively disable clock.
> IMO, this should be ok since it can avoid duplication and proper comment can
> be added here for clarity.
> Alternatively we can call hda_tegra_runtime_resume() in probe()
> unconditionally to avoid confusion.
> 
> Another point Thierry mentioned was, after successful probe() power-domain
> would be turned OFF. It seems Rafael had a different
> view. I am little confused here. Kindly clarify if above proposal seems
> fine.

We're wasting an awful lot of time over the discussion of something that
I think is of questionable usefulness. I propose we do the below and can
forget about this once and for all.

Thierry

--- >8 ---
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig
index 7f3b83e0d324..51a8fa3566ef 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ menuconfig ARCH_TEGRA
 	select HAVE_ARM_SCU if SMP
 	select HAVE_ARM_TWD if SMP
 	select PINCTRL
+	select PM
 	select PM_OPP
 	select ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER
 	select RESET_CONTROLLER

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature