Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: Use pmruntime sync variant to put suppliers

[Stanimir Varbanov]

Hi Rafael,

On 10/7/20 5:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:20 AM Stanimir Varbanov
> <stanimir.varbanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Calling pm_runtime_put_sync over a device with suppliers with device
>> link flags PM_RUNTIME | RPM_ACTIVE it is observed that the supplier
>> is not put (turned off) at the end, but instead put asynchronously.
> 
> Yes, that's by design.
> 
>> In some case This could lead to issues for the callers which expects
>> that the pmruntime sync variants should also put the suppliers
>> synchronously.
> 
> Why would anyone expect that to happen?

It is logical to me that when I call pm_runtime_put_sync the device and
its suppliers are put synchronously. If I want to put device and its
suppliers asynchronously I'd use pm_runtime_put. Is that wrong assumption?

> 
>> Also the opposite rpm_get_suppliers is already using pmruntime _sync
>> variant of the API.
> 
> Yes, it does, because that is necessary.
> 
>> Correct this by changing pmruntime_put to pmruntime_put_sync in
>> rpm_put_suppliers.
> 
> It is not a correction, but a change in behavior without good enough
> rationale, as it stands.

In my driver case I want to deal with a recovery of a crash in remote
processor (the remote processor is used to control and program hardware
blocks and also to communicate with host processor through shared
memory). To restart the remote processor I have to disable clocks and
turn off few power domains (one of the power domains is made a supplier
of my main device) in order to complete the cold-boot.

The problem I'm facing with this design is that when I call
runtime_put_sync (to disable device's clocks and turn off power domain)
the clocks are disabled (part of pmruntime_suspend callback) but the
pmdomain (the device supplier) is not turned synchronously. I workaround
this by checking the supplier device via pm_runtime_active() until it
becomes inactive and the continue with rest of the steps.

>From my point of view this check for supplier activity should be part of
pmruntime API.

> 
> Thanks!
> 

-- 
regards,
Stan