[PATCH v3 0/9] PM / Domains: Fix race conditions during boot
grygorii.strashko at ti.com
Thu Nov 13 12:13:03 PST 2014
On 11/13/2014 04:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 07, 2014 07:25:08 PM Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> 4) I've copied here comment from Rafael:
>> >>>> Of course, if ->probe() is to call pm_runtime_resume() for this purpose,
>> >>>> it must take the fact that the driver's own ->runtime_resume() may be called
>> >>>> as a result of this into account.
>> Agree, that's a little bit annoying, but we are living with that for more then
>> 5 years already (I'm 3 years) - so, I am, as driver developer, expecting above behavior
>> (just walk through the drivers and you will see how many drivers expecting the same).
>> So, any volunteers to check and fix ~500 drivers.
> Where did you get that number from?
Sry, my bad. Rechecked - found 289 occurrences of pm_runtime_enable().
Number of Runtime PM enabled drivers = at about 289 +-10%.
- headers, suspend/resume,..
+ buses like amba and spmi
> Also please note that some bus types don't have this problem by design (e.g. PCI,
> as pointed to by Alan).
Right. I worry about Platform bus first of all, because HW PM implementation
(at least for ARM SoCs) can be very different there.
>>>> - Runtime PM (if compiled in) needs to be enabled for all devices in power
>>>> domains by default. Otherwise devices may lose power as a result for
>>>> power management of the other devices in the same domain.
>> It should prevent enabling/disabling of RPM from sys_fs too.
> It looks like you're confusing disable/enable with auto/on. These are different
>>>> - The core should try to power up domains before calling really_probe() both
>>>> for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME set and unset, so ->probe() can always make the
>>>> "device is accessible" assumption.
>> Here I'm still think that pm_runtime_get_sync() (or similar) API should work.
>> Another way, PM domain should decide what to do when the first device attached to it
>> - power up and stay powered on for example
>> (It will work if devices are attached before ->probe();
>> it will not work if devices will be attached once they've been created, but this is different
> The PM domain itself can't do that. The only place that has enough knowledge
> is the code that enumerates devices (DT, ACPI or board-specific).
>>> And how exactly will you then power up the PM domain when
>>> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is unset?
>>>> - Bus types may need to do more on top of that in their ->probe(), so the
>>>> driver's ->probe() can make that assumption too in all cases.
>>>> Does that make sense to you?
>> I would like to take the liberty to add a couple of points from me:
>> - it seems reasonable to have ability to disable Runtime PM globally from sys_fs:
>> once disabled - "get" should power on device, "put" should do nothing all the
>> time except when ->remove() is called.
> This is how the "power/control" file works and you can easily have this by writing
> "on" to that file for every device.
>> - It might be reasonable to add API like pm_runtime_probe_getXXX() which will do
>> everything what standard pm_runtime_get_sync() is doing with one exception:
>> it will not call driver's .runtime_resume() callback.
> Use case?
This is just a different view (RFC) on your idea to call pm_runtime_get_sync()
before dev->driver is initialized
("(b) bypassing the driver callbacks somehow".
- add some flag like dev->is_probing
- in pm_runtime_probe_get_sync() do
dev->is_probing = true;
dev->is_probing = false;
- update 3 places in code pm_generic_runtime_resume, pm_genpd_default_save_state and
__rpm_get_callback like below (only for .runtime_resume):
@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ int pm_generic_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL;
+ if (dev->is_probing)
+ pm = NULL;
Then drivers (at least platform drivers) will be able to call
at any time they think is right (no problem with parent devices,
Power domain will be enabled, class/type/bus callback will be called,
no need to use pm_runtime_set_active()).
More information about the linux-arm-kernel