On 13 November 2017 at 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>> >
>> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
>> > trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
>> > really make sense, because in fact it is not invalid to set the
>> > status of a device with runtime PM disabled to "suspended" in any
>> > case. It is invalid to enable runtime PM for a device with its
>> > status set to "suspended" while its child_count reference counter
>> > is nonzero, but the check in __pm_runtime_set_status() doesn't
>> > really cover that situation.
>>
>> The reason to why I changed this in commit a8636c89648a ("PM /
>> Runtime: Don't allow to suspend a device with an active child") was
>> because to get a consistent behavior.
>
> Well, it causes the function to return an error in a non-error situation,
> which IMnsHO is a bug.
>
>> Because, setting the device's status to active (RPM_ACTIVE) via
>> __pm_runtime_set_status(), requires its parent to also be active (in
>> case the parent has runtime PM enabled).
>
> No!!!
>
> The check is in there, because the parent's usage_count is affected by that
> code and incrementing it in case the parent has runtime PM enabled and is
> RPM_SUSPENDED leads to an inconsistent runtime PM state of the parent. IOW,
> it would confuse the framework.
Right, I do understand the reasons *why* it is like this.
>
> There's no such issue if the runtime PM status of a child is set to
> RPM_SUSPENDED.
>
> It is all consistent without the check I'm removing and is made inconsistent
> by that very check.
>
>> I would prefer to try maintain this consistency, but I also I realize
>> that commit a8636c89648a, should also have been checking if the parent
>> has runtime PM enabled (again for consistency), which it doesn't.
>>
>> What about fixing that instead?
>
> Runtime PM is *disabled* for the parent at this point, guaranteed, so there's
> nothing to check, I'm afraid ...
Where and how is that guarantee made?
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
