Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] PM: domains: Drop/restore performance state votes for devices at runtime PM

[Viresh Kumar]

On 03-06-21, 13:17, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 12:31, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > +static int genpd_drop_performance_state(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     unsigned int prev_state = dev_gpd_data(dev)->performance_state;
> > > > +
> > > > +     if (!genpd_set_performance_state(dev, 0))
> > > > +             return prev_state;
> > > > +
> > > > +     return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void genpd_restore_performance_state(struct device *dev,
> > > > +                                         unsigned int state)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     if (state)
> > >
> > > I will skip this check, as we are checking it in
> > > genpd_set_performance_state() anyway ?
> >
> > I don't want us to override OPP votes made by the subsystem/driver
> > level runtime PM callbacks. For example, if the drivers manage this
> > thing themselves, that should be preserved.
> >
> > That said, by the check above I want to avoid setting the state to
> > zero internally by genpd, if the driver level ->runtime_resume()
> > callback has already restored the state.
> 
> Ehh, forget about what I said about the ->runtime_resume() callback.
> 
> I am mostly trying to avoid restoring a state that is zero, just to be
> sure nobody else on some different level outside gendp, have decided
> to set a new OPP in-between our calls to
> genpd_drop|restore_performance state.

What stops the core to call genpd_drop_performance_state() in the
first place here, if the driver was doing its own thing ? If that gets
called, then restore should be without any checks IMO. The state
should already be 0 at this point of time, I don't know why this will
get called again with state 0, but it will have no effect.

Can you give some sort of flow sequence where I can see the problem a
bit more clearly ?

-- 
viresh