On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:37:03 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:26:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:11:32 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > For reasons having nothing to do with Allen's suggested change, I
> > > > > wonder if we shouldn't replace this line with something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > - else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 &&
> > > > > dev->power.is_suspended
> > > > > + else if (dev->power.disable > 0 && !dev->power.is_suspended
> > > > > && dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
> > > > > retval = 1;
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that I've been bitten by this several times in the past.
> > > > > When a device is disabled for runtime PM, and more or less permanently
> > > > > stuck in the RPM_ACTIVE state, calls to pm_runtime_resume() or
> > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync() shouldn't fail.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, suppose some devices of a certain type support runtime
> > > > > power management but others don't. We naturally want to call
> > > > > pm_runtime_disable() for the ones that don't. But we also want the
> > > > > same driver to work for all the devices, which means that
> > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync() should return success -- otherwise the driver
> > > > > will think that something has gone wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rafael, what do you think?
> > > >
> > > > That condition is there specifically to take care of the system suspend
> > > > code path. It means that if runtime PM is disabled, but it only has
> > > > been
> > > > disabled by the system suspend code path, we should treat the device as
> > > > "active" (ie. return 1). That won't work after the proposed change.
> > >
> > > Ah, yes, quite true. Okay, suppose we replace that line with just:
> > >
> > > + else if (dev->power.disable > 0
> > >
> > > > I guess drivers that want to work with devices where runtime PM may be
> > > > disabled can just check the return value of rpm_resume() for -EACCES?
> > >
> > > They could, but it's extra work and it's extremely easy to forget
> > > about. I'd prefer not to do things that way.
> >
> > In that case we need to audit all code that checks the return value of
> > __pm_runtime_resume() to verify that it doesn't depend on the current
> > behavior in any way. It shouldn't, but still.
> >
> > Also we probably should drop the -EACCES return value from rpm_resume() in
> > the
> > same patch, because it specifically only covers the dev->power.disable > 0
> > case
> > (which BTW is consistent with the suspend side of things, so I'm totally
> > unsure
> > about that being the right thing to do to be honest).
>
> Perhaps it'd be better to rework __pm_runtime_resume() to convert the -EACCES
> return value from rpm_resume() into 0 if RPM_GET_PUT is set?
Or do something like this?
---
drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
@@ -608,7 +608,8 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev
repeat:
if (dev->power.runtime_error)
retval = -EINVAL;
- else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended
+ else if (((dev->power.disable_depth > 0 && (rpmflags & RPM_GET_PUT))
+ || (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended))
&& dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
retval = 1;
else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
