Hi Sylwester, On Monday 17 October 2011 23:26:28 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > On 10/17/2011 05:23 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >> On 10/17/2011 03:49 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >>>> On 10/17/2011 10:06 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >> ... > >> > >>>>>> The bridge driver can't (nor should) know about the power management > >>>>>> requirements of random subdevs. The name of the s_power op is rather > >>>>>> poitless in its current state. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The power state of the subdev probably even never matters to the > >>>>>> bridge --- > >>>>> > >>>>> Exactly, that's the conclusion I come to in this RFC too. > >>>>> > >>>>>> or do we really have an example of that? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In my opinion the bridge driver should instead tell the bridge > >>>>>> drivers what they can expect to hear from the bridge --- for > >>>>>> example that the bridge can issue set / get controls or fmt ops to > >>>>>> the subdev. The subdev may or may not need to be powered for those: > >>>>>> only the subdev driver knows. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hm, why should the bridge driver tell the subdev driver (I presume, > >>>>> that's a typo in your above sentence) what to _expect_? Isn't just > >>>>> calling those operations enough? > >>>>> > >>>>>> This is analogous to opening the subdev node from user space. > >>>>>> Anything else except streaming is allowed. And streaming, which for > >>>>>> sure requires powering on the subdev, is already nicely handled by > >>>>>> the s_stream op. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In practice the name of s_power should change, as well as possible > >>>>>> implementatio on subdev drivers. > >>>>> > >>>>> But why do we need it at all? > >>>> > >>>> AFAICS in some TV card drivers it is used to put the analog tuner into > >>>> low power state. > >>>> So core.s_power op provides the mans to suspend/resume a sub-device. > >>>> > >>>> If the bridge driver only implements a user space interface for the > >>>> subdev, it may want to bring a subdev up in some specific moment, > >>>> before video.s_stream, e.g. in some ioctl or at device open(), etc. > >>>> > >>>> Let's imagine bringing the sensor up takes appr. 700 ms, often we > >>>> don't want the sensor driver to be doing this before every > >>>> s_stream(). > >>> > >>> Sorry, I still don't understand, how the bridge driver knows better, > >>> than the subdev driver, whether the user will resume streaming in > >>> 500ms or in 20s? Maybe there's some such information available with > >>> tuners, which I'm just unaware about? > >> > >> What I meant was that if the bridge driver assumes in advance that > >> enabling sensor's power and getting it fully operational takes long > >> time, it can enable sensor's power earlier than it's really necessary, > >> to avoid excessive latencies during further actions. > > > > Where would a bridge driver get this information from? And how would it > > know in advance, when power would be "really needed" to enable it > > "earlier?"... > > I don't think this information could now be retrieved from a subdev in > standard way. > > If a bridge driver wants low latencies it can simply be coded to issue > s_power(1) before any other op call, and s_power(0) when it's done with a > subdev. > > >> The bridge driver could also choose to keep the sensor powered on, > >> whenever it sees appropriate, to avoid re-enabling the sensor to often. > > > > On what basis would the bridge driver make these decisions? How would it > > know in advance, when it'll have to re-enable the subdev next time? > > Re-enabling by allowing a subdev driver to entirely control the power > state. The sensor might implement "lowest power consumption" policy, while > the user might want "highest performance".
Exactly, that's a policy decision. Would PM QoS help here ? > I'm referring only to camera sensor subdevs, as I don't have much experience > with other ones. > > Also there are some devices where you want to model power control > explicitly, and it is critical to overall system operation. The s5p-tv > driver is one example of these. The host driver knows exactly how the > power state of its subdevs should be handled. The host probably knows about how to handle the power state of its internal subdevs, but what about external ones ? > The situation with single subdev and a bridge driver may look like it could > get away without s_power(), but where multiple subdevs are involved I > expect the driver writers will want to be able to control the power state. > > It seems s_power() is now used not only in suspend/resume paths so removing > it for new core.suspend/resume callbacks IMHO would leave some > functionality not covered. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
