[PATCH RFC v1 1/1] scsi: pm: Leave runtime resume along if block layer PM is enabled

[Can Guo]

Hi Bart,

Resent, typo fixed.

On 2020-11-15 04:57, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/12/20 10:30 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>> If block layer runtime PM is enabled for one SCSI device, then there 
>> is
>> no need to forcibly change the SCSI device and its request queue's 
>> runtime
>> PM status to active in scsi_dev_type_resume(), since block layer PM 
>> shall
>> resume the SCSI device on the demand of bios.
> 
> Please change "along" into "alone" in the subject of this patch (if 
> that
> is what you meant).
> 

Aha, sorry, a typo here.

>> +	if (scsi_is_sdev_device(dev)) {
>> +		struct scsi_device *sdev;
>> 
>> +		sdev = to_scsi_device(dev);
> 
> A minor comment: I think that "struct scsi_device *sdev =
> to_scsi_device(dev);" fits on a single line.
> 

Sure.

>> +		 * If block layer runtime PM is enabled for the SCSI device,
>> +		 * let block layer PM handle its runtime PM routines.
> 
> Please change "its runtime PM routines" into "runtime resume" or
> similar. I think that will make the comment more clear.
> 

Yes, thanks.

>> +		if (sdev->request_queue->dev)
>> +			return err;
>> +	}
> 
> The 'dev' member only exists in struct request_queue if CONFIG_PM=y so
> the above won't compile if CONFIG_PM=n. How about adding a function in
> include/linux/blk-pm.h to check whether or not runtime PM has been 
> enabled?
> 

You are right.

> Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
> 

Actually, I am thinking about removing all the pm_runtime_set_active()
codes in both scsi_bus_resume_common() and scsi_dev_type_resume() - we
don't need to forcibly set the runtime PM status to RPM_ACTIVE for 
either
SCSI host/target or SCSI devices.

Whenever we access one SCSI device, either block layer or somewhere in
the path (e.g. throgh sg IOCTL, sg_open() calls 
scsi_autopm_get_device())
should runtime resume the device first, and the runtime PM framework 
makes
sure device's parent (and its parent's parent and so on)gets resumed as 
well.
Thus, the pm_runtime_set_active() seems redundant. What do you think?

Thanks,

Can Guo.

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.