[PATCH] PM / Domains: Power on the PM domain right after attach completes

Ulf Hansson ulf.hansson at linaro.org
Wed Nov 19 00:54:00 PST 2014


>> Scenario 5), a platform driver with/without runtime PM callbacks.
>> ->probe()
>> - do some initialization
>> - may fetch handles to runtime PM resources
>> - pm_runtime_enable()
> Well, and now how the driver knows if the device is "on" before accessing it?

In this case the driver don't need to access the device during
->probe(). That's postponed until sometime later.

>> Note 1)
>> Scenario 1) and 2), both relies on the approach to power on the PM
>> domain by using pm_runtime_get_sync(). That approach didn't work when
>> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME was unset, but we recently decided to fixed that by
>> the below patch, so that's good!
>> "[PATCH] PM / domains: Kconfig: always enable PM_RUNTIME when genpd enabled"
>> Note 2)
>> Scenario 3) and 4) use the same principles for managing runtime PM.
>> These scenarios needs a way to power on the generic PM domain prior
>> probing the device. The call to pm_runtime_set_active(), prevents an
>> already powered PM domain from power off until after probe, but that's
>> not enough.
>> Note 3)
>> The $subject patch, tried to address the issues for scenario 3) and
>> 4). It does so, but will affect scenario 5) which was working nicely
>> before. In scenario 5), the $subject patch will cause the generic PM
>> domain to potentially stay powered after ->probe() even if the device
>> is runtime PM suspended.
> Why would it?  If the device is runtime-suspended, the domain will know
> that, because its callbacks will be used for that.  At least, that's
> what I'd expect to happen, so is there a problem here?

Genpd do knows about the device but it doesn’t get a "notification" to
power off. There are no issues whatsoever for driver.

This is a somewhat special case. Let's go through an example.

1. The PM domain is initially in powered off state.
2. The bus ->probe() invokes dev_pm_domain_attach() and then the PM
domain gets attached to the device.
3. $subject patch causes the PM domain to power on.
4. A driver ->probe() sequence start, following the Scenario 5).
5. The device is initially in runtime PM suspended state and it will
remain so during ->probe().
6. The pm_request_idle() invoked after really_probe() in driver core,
won't trigger a runtime PM suspend callback to be invoked. In other
words, genpd don't get a "notification" that it may power off.

In this state, genpd will either power off from the late_initcall,
genpd_poweroff_unused() (depending on when the driver was probed) or
wait until some device's runtime PM suspend callback is invoked at any
later point.

>> I see three options going forward.
>> Option 1)
>> Convert scenario 3) and 4) into using the pm_runtime_get_sync()
>> approach. There are no theoretical obstacles to do this, but pure
>> practical. There are a lot of drivers that needs to be converted and
>> we also need to teach driver authors future wise to not use
>> pm_runtime_set_active() in this manner.
> I'd say we need to do something like this anyway.  That is, standardize on
> *one* approach.  I'm actually not sure what approach is the most useful,
> but the pm_runtime_get_sync() one seems to be the most popular to me.
>> Option 2)
>> Add some kind of get/put API for PM domains. The buses invokes it to
>> control the power to the PM domain. From what I understand, that's
>> also what Dmitry think is needed!?
>> Anyway, that somehow means to proceed with the approach I took in the
>> below patchset.
>> [PATCH v3 0/9] PM / Domains: Fix race conditions during boot
>> http://marc.info/?t=141320907000003&r=1&w=2
> I don't like that.  The API is already quite complicated in my view and
> adding even more complexity to it is not going to help in the long run.

I absolutely agree that we shouldn't add unnecessary APIs and keep
APIs as simple as possible.

In that context, I think the effect from proceeding with Option 2)
also means there are no need for the below APIs any more.
pm_genpd_name_poweron() (requires some additional work though)

I guess you figured out that I am in favour of Option 2). :-)
Especially since it cover all scenarios and we don't have to go a fix
a vast amount of drivers.

>> Option 3)
>> Live we the limitation this $subject patch introduces for scenario 5).
> I'd say, 3) for now and 1) going forward.

This could work!

The hardest part is to know when we should revert $subject patch, to
fix the regression introduced for scenario 5).

>> Is there maybe any additional options, that I didn't think of?
>> Apologize for the long email, I hope I didn't bored you too much.
> That's fine, thanks for taking the time to lay out all of the cases, that's
> always helpful.
> Rafael

Kind regards

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list