Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
On 2020-05-28 03:41, Doug Anderson wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:37 AM Doug Anderson wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:06 AM wrote: > > On 2020-05-14 21:47, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:31 AM Kalyan Thota > > wrote: > >> > >> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > >> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > >> after calling the ->resume() callback" > >> > >> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > >> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > >> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > >> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > >> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > >> entering into XO shutdown. > >> > >> Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep. > >> > >> Changes in v1: > >> - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > >> _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount > >>as suspend_late might not be called during suspend > >>call failures (Doug). > >> > >> Changes in v3: > >> - Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count > >>via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug). > >> > >> Changes in v4: > >> - Check the return values of pm_runtime_force_suspend and > >>pm_runtime_force_resume API's and pass appropriately (Doug). > >> > >> Changes in v5: > > > > Can you please put the version number properly in your subject? It's > > really hard to tell one version of your patch from another. > > > > > >> - With v4 patch, test cycle has uncovered issues in device resume. > >> > >>On bubs: cmd tx failures were seen as SW is sending panel off > >>commands when the dsi resources are turned off. > >> > >>Upon suspend, DRM driver will issue a NULL composition to the > >>dpu, followed by turning off all the HW blocks. > >> > >>v5 changes will serialize the NULL commit and resource unwinding > >>by handling them under PM prepare and PM complete phases there by > >>ensuring that clks are on when panel off commands are being > >>processed. > > > > I'm still most definitely not an expert in how all the DRM pieces all > > hook up together, but the solution you have in this patch seems wrong > > to me. As far as I can tell the "prepare" state isn't supposed to be > > actually doing the suspend work and here that's exactly what you're > > doing. I think you should find a different solution to ensure > > ordering is correct. > > > > -Doug > > > > Hi, Quite honestly I'm probably not the right person to be reviewing this code. I mostly just noticed one of your early patches and it looked strange to me. Hopefully someone with actual experience in how all the DRM components work together can actually review and see if this makes sense. Maybe Sean would know better? That being said, let me at least look at what you're saying... > Prepare and Complete are callbacks defined as part of Sleep and Resume > sequence > > Entering PM SUSPEND the phases are : prepare --> suspend --> > suspend_late --> suspend_noirq. > While leaving PM SUSPEND the phases are: resume_noirq --> resume_early > --> resume --> complete. Sure, it's part of the sequence. It's also documented in pm.h as: * The principal role of this callback is to prevent new children of * the device from being registered after it has returned (the driver's * subsystem and generally the rest of the kernel is supposed to prevent * new calls to the probe method from being made too once @prepare() has * succeeded). It does not feel like that matches your usage of this call. > The reason to push drm suspend handling to PM prepare phase is that > parent here will trigger a modeset to turn off the timing and > subsequently the panel. > the child devices should not turn of their clocks before parent unwinds > the composition. Hence they are serialized as per the sequence mentioned > above. So the general model in Linux is that children suspend before their parents, right? So you're saying that, in this case, the parent needs to act on the child before the child suspends. Is that correct? Rather than hijacking the prepare/complete, I'd be at least slightly inclined to move the other driver to turn off its clocks in suspend_late and to turn them back on in resume_early? That seems to be what was done in "analogix_dp-rockchip.c" to solve a similar problem. > A similar approach is taken by other driver that use drm framework. In > this driver, the device registers for prepare and complete callbacks to > handle drm_suspend and drm_resume. > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c#L163 OK, if there is another driver in DRM then I guess I won't object too strongly. Note that when searching for other drivers I noticed this bit in todo.rst: * Most drivers (except
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi, On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:37 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:06 AM wrote: > > > > On 2020-05-14 21:47, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:31 AM Kalyan Thota > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > > >> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > > >> after calling the ->resume() callback" > > >> > > >> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > > >> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > > >> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > > >> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > > >> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > > >> entering into XO shutdown. > > >> > > >> Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep. > > >> > > >> Changes in v1: > > >> - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > > >> _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). > > >> > > >> Changes in v2: > > >> - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount > > >>as suspend_late might not be called during suspend > > >>call failures (Doug). > > >> > > >> Changes in v3: > > >> - Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count > > >>via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug). > > >> > > >> Changes in v4: > > >> - Check the return values of pm_runtime_force_suspend and > > >>pm_runtime_force_resume API's and pass appropriately (Doug). > > >> > > >> Changes in v5: > > > > > > Can you please put the version number properly in your subject? It's > > > really hard to tell one version of your patch from another. > > > > > > > > >> - With v4 patch, test cycle has uncovered issues in device resume. > > >> > > >>On bubs: cmd tx failures were seen as SW is sending panel off > > >>commands when the dsi resources are turned off. > > >> > > >>Upon suspend, DRM driver will issue a NULL composition to the > > >>dpu, followed by turning off all the HW blocks. > > >> > > >>v5 changes will serialize the NULL commit and resource unwinding > > >>by handling them under PM prepare and PM complete phases there by > > >>ensuring that clks are on when panel off commands are being > > >>processed. > > > > > > I'm still most definitely not an expert in how all the DRM pieces all > > > hook up together, but the solution you have in this patch seems wrong > > > to me. As far as I can tell the "prepare" state isn't supposed to be > > > actually doing the suspend work and here that's exactly what you're > > > doing. I think you should find a different solution to ensure > > > ordering is correct. > > > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > Hi, > > Quite honestly I'm probably not the right person to be reviewing this > code. I mostly just noticed one of your early patches and it looked > strange to me. Hopefully someone with actual experience in how all > the DRM components work together can actually review and see if this > makes sense. Maybe Sean would know better? > > That being said, let me at least look at what you're saying... > > > > Prepare and Complete are callbacks defined as part of Sleep and Resume > > sequence > > > > Entering PM SUSPEND the phases are : prepare --> suspend --> > > suspend_late --> suspend_noirq. > > While leaving PM SUSPEND the phases are: resume_noirq --> resume_early > > --> resume --> complete. > > Sure, it's part of the sequence. It's also documented in pm.h as: > > * The principal role of this callback is to prevent new children of > * the device from being registered after it has returned (the driver's > * subsystem and generally the rest of the kernel is supposed to prevent > * new calls to the probe method from being made too once @prepare() has > * succeeded). > > It does not feel like that matches your usage of this call. > > > > The reason to push drm suspend handling to PM prepare phase is that > > parent here will trigger a modeset to turn off the timing and > > subsequently the panel. > > the child devices should not turn of their clocks before parent unwinds > > the composition. Hence they are serialized as per the sequence mentioned > > above. > > So the general model in Linux is that children suspend before their > parents, right? So you're saying that, in this case, the parent needs > to act on the child before the child suspends. Is that correct? > > Rather than hijacking the prepare/complete, I'd be at least slightly > inclined to move the other driver to turn off its clocks in > suspend_late and to turn them back on in resume_early? That seems to > be what was done in "analogix_dp-rockchip.c" to solve a similar > problem. > > > > A similar approach is taken by other driver that use drm framework. In > > this driver, the device registers for prepare and complete callbacks to > > handle drm_suspend and drm_resume. > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c#L163 >
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi, On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:06 AM wrote: > > On 2020-05-14 21:47, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:31 AM Kalyan Thota > > wrote: > >> > >> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > >> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > >> after calling the ->resume() callback" > >> > >> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > >> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > >> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > >> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > >> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > >> entering into XO shutdown. > >> > >> Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep. > >> > >> Changes in v1: > >> - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > >> _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount > >>as suspend_late might not be called during suspend > >>call failures (Doug). > >> > >> Changes in v3: > >> - Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count > >>via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug). > >> > >> Changes in v4: > >> - Check the return values of pm_runtime_force_suspend and > >>pm_runtime_force_resume API's and pass appropriately (Doug). > >> > >> Changes in v5: > > > > Can you please put the version number properly in your subject? It's > > really hard to tell one version of your patch from another. > > > > > >> - With v4 patch, test cycle has uncovered issues in device resume. > >> > >>On bubs: cmd tx failures were seen as SW is sending panel off > >>commands when the dsi resources are turned off. > >> > >>Upon suspend, DRM driver will issue a NULL composition to the > >>dpu, followed by turning off all the HW blocks. > >> > >>v5 changes will serialize the NULL commit and resource unwinding > >>by handling them under PM prepare and PM complete phases there by > >>ensuring that clks are on when panel off commands are being > >>processed. > > > > I'm still most definitely not an expert in how all the DRM pieces all > > hook up together, but the solution you have in this patch seems wrong > > to me. As far as I can tell the "prepare" state isn't supposed to be > > actually doing the suspend work and here that's exactly what you're > > doing. I think you should find a different solution to ensure > > ordering is correct. > > > > -Doug > > > > Hi, Quite honestly I'm probably not the right person to be reviewing this code. I mostly just noticed one of your early patches and it looked strange to me. Hopefully someone with actual experience in how all the DRM components work together can actually review and see if this makes sense. Maybe Sean would know better? That being said, let me at least look at what you're saying... > Prepare and Complete are callbacks defined as part of Sleep and Resume > sequence > > Entering PM SUSPEND the phases are : prepare --> suspend --> > suspend_late --> suspend_noirq. > While leaving PM SUSPEND the phases are: resume_noirq --> resume_early > --> resume --> complete. Sure, it's part of the sequence. It's also documented in pm.h as: * The principal role of this callback is to prevent new children of * the device from being registered after it has returned (the driver's * subsystem and generally the rest of the kernel is supposed to prevent * new calls to the probe method from being made too once @prepare() has * succeeded). It does not feel like that matches your usage of this call. > The reason to push drm suspend handling to PM prepare phase is that > parent here will trigger a modeset to turn off the timing and > subsequently the panel. > the child devices should not turn of their clocks before parent unwinds > the composition. Hence they are serialized as per the sequence mentioned > above. So the general model in Linux is that children suspend before their parents, right? So you're saying that, in this case, the parent needs to act on the child before the child suspends. Is that correct? Rather than hijacking the prepare/complete, I'd be at least slightly inclined to move the other driver to turn off its clocks in suspend_late and to turn them back on in resume_early? That seems to be what was done in "analogix_dp-rockchip.c" to solve a similar problem. > A similar approach is taken by other driver that use drm framework. In > this driver, the device registers for prepare and complete callbacks to > handle drm_suspend and drm_resume. > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c#L163 OK, if there is another driver in DRM then I guess I won't object too strongly. Note that when searching for other drivers I noticed this bit in todo.rst: * Most drivers (except i915 and nouveau) that use * drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() can probably be converted to use *
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
On 2020-05-14 21:47, Doug Anderson wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:31 AM Kalyan Thota wrote: "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback" DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not entering into XO shutdown. Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep. Changes in v1: - Remove unnecessary checks in the function _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). Changes in v2: - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount as suspend_late might not be called during suspend call failures (Doug). Changes in v3: - Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug). Changes in v4: - Check the return values of pm_runtime_force_suspend and pm_runtime_force_resume API's and pass appropriately (Doug). Changes in v5: Can you please put the version number properly in your subject? It's really hard to tell one version of your patch from another. - With v4 patch, test cycle has uncovered issues in device resume. On bubs: cmd tx failures were seen as SW is sending panel off commands when the dsi resources are turned off. Upon suspend, DRM driver will issue a NULL composition to the dpu, followed by turning off all the HW blocks. v5 changes will serialize the NULL commit and resource unwinding by handling them under PM prepare and PM complete phases there by ensuring that clks are on when panel off commands are being processed. I'm still most definitely not an expert in how all the DRM pieces all hook up together, but the solution you have in this patch seems wrong to me. As far as I can tell the "prepare" state isn't supposed to be actually doing the suspend work and here that's exactly what you're doing. I think you should find a different solution to ensure ordering is correct. -Doug Hi, Prepare and Complete are callbacks defined as part of Sleep and Resume sequence Entering PM SUSPEND the phases are : prepare --> suspend --> suspend_late --> suspend_noirq. While leaving PM SUSPEND the phases are: resume_noirq --> resume_early --> resume --> complete. The reason to push drm suspend handling to PM prepare phase is that parent here will trigger a modeset to turn off the timing and subsequently the panel. the child devices should not turn of their clocks before parent unwinds the composition. Hence they are serialized as per the sequence mentioned above. A similar approach is taken by other driver that use drm framework. In this driver, the device registers for prepare and complete callbacks to handle drm_suspend and drm_resume. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c#L163 Kalyan ___ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno ___ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi, On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:31 AM Kalyan Thota wrote: > > "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > after calling the ->resume() callback" > > DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > entering into XO shutdown. > > Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep. > > Changes in v1: > - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). > > Changes in v2: > - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount >as suspend_late might not be called during suspend >call failures (Doug). > > Changes in v3: > - Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count >via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug). > > Changes in v4: > - Check the return values of pm_runtime_force_suspend and >pm_runtime_force_resume API's and pass appropriately (Doug). > > Changes in v5: Can you please put the version number properly in your subject? It's really hard to tell one version of your patch from another. > - With v4 patch, test cycle has uncovered issues in device resume. > >On bubs: cmd tx failures were seen as SW is sending panel off >commands when the dsi resources are turned off. > >Upon suspend, DRM driver will issue a NULL composition to the >dpu, followed by turning off all the HW blocks. > >v5 changes will serialize the NULL commit and resource unwinding >by handling them under PM prepare and PM complete phases there by >ensuring that clks are on when panel off commands are being >processed. I'm still most definitely not an expert in how all the DRM pieces all hook up together, but the solution you have in this patch seems wrong to me. As far as I can tell the "prepare" state isn't supposed to be actually doing the suspend work and here that's exactly what you're doing. I think you should find a different solution to ensure ordering is correct. -Doug ___ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi, On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:13 AM Kalyan Thota wrote: > > "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > after calling the ->resume() callback" > > DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > entering into XO shutdown. > > Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep. > > Changes in v1: > - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). > > Changes in v2: > - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount >as suspend_late might not be called during suspend >call failures (Doug). > > Changes in v3: > - Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count >via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug). > > Changes in v4: > - Check the return values of pm_runtime_force_suspend and >pm_runtime_force_resume API's and pass appropriately (Doug). > > Signed-off-by: Kalyan Thota > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 2 ++ > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c | 2 ++ > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 14 +- > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) I am most certainly not an expert in this code, but as far as I can tell it looks sane. Thus: Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson -Doug ___ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
On 2020-03-31 21:30, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:58 AM Kalyan Thota
wrote:
"The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
after calling the ->resume() callback"
DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
entering into XO shutdown.
Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep.
Changes in v1:
- Remove unnecessary checks in the function
_dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark).
Changes in v2:
- Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount
as suspend_late might not be called during suspend
call failures (Doug).
Changes in v3:
- Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count
via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug).
Signed-off-by: Kalyan Thota
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 4
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
This looks much saner to me. Thanks! I assume it still works fine
for you? I'm still no expert on how all the pieces of DRM drivers
work together, but at least there's not a bunch of strange fiddling
with pm_runtime state and hopefully it will avoid weird corner
cases...
--- Yes, verified the change on trogdor device, and display can suspend
with the change.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
index ce19f1d..b886d9d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
@@ -1123,6 +1123,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused
dpu_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
static const struct dev_pm_ops dpu_pm_ops = {
SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(dpu_runtime_suspend, dpu_runtime_resume,
NULL)
+ SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
+ pm_runtime_force_resume)
};
static const struct of_device_id dpu_dt_match[] = {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
index 55ea4bc2..62704885 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
@@ -161,6 +161,8 @@ static int dsi_dev_remove(struct platform_device
*pdev)
static const struct dev_pm_ops dsi_pm_ops = {
SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_dsi_runtime_suspend,
msm_dsi_runtime_resume, NULL)
+ SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
+ pm_runtime_force_resume)
};
static struct platform_driver dsi_driver = {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
index 7d985f8..2b8c99c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
@@ -1051,6 +1051,8 @@ static int msm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
return ret;
}
+ pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev);
nit: check return value of pm_runtime_force_suspend()?
+
return 0;
}
@@ -1063,6 +1065,8 @@ static int msm_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
if (WARN_ON(!priv->pm_state))
return -ENOENT;
+ pm_runtime_force_resume(dev);
nit: check return value of pm_runtime_force_resume()?
-Doug
___
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:58 AM Kalyan Thota wrote:
>
> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
> after calling the ->resume() callback"
>
> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
> entering into XO shutdown.
>
> Add changes to force suspend on runtime devices during pm sleep.
>
> Changes in v1:
> - Remove unnecessary checks in the function
> _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark).
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount
>as suspend_late might not be called during suspend
>call failures (Doug).
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Use force suspend instead of managing device usage_count
>via runtime put and get API's to trigger callbacks (Doug).
>
> Signed-off-by: Kalyan Thota
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 2 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c | 2 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 4
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
This looks much saner to me. Thanks! I assume it still works fine
for you? I'm still no expert on how all the pieces of DRM drivers
work together, but at least there's not a bunch of strange fiddling
with pm_runtime state and hopefully it will avoid weird corner
cases...
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> index ce19f1d..b886d9d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> @@ -1123,6 +1123,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused dpu_runtime_resume(struct
> device *dev)
>
> static const struct dev_pm_ops dpu_pm_ops = {
> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(dpu_runtime_suspend, dpu_runtime_resume, NULL)
> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
> + pm_runtime_force_resume)
> };
>
> static const struct of_device_id dpu_dt_match[] = {
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> index 55ea4bc2..62704885 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> @@ -161,6 +161,8 @@ static int dsi_dev_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> static const struct dev_pm_ops dsi_pm_ops = {
> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_dsi_runtime_suspend, msm_dsi_runtime_resume,
> NULL)
> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
> + pm_runtime_force_resume)
> };
>
> static struct platform_driver dsi_driver = {
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> index 7d985f8..2b8c99c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> @@ -1051,6 +1051,8 @@ static int msm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> + pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev);
nit: check return value of pm_runtime_force_suspend()?
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1063,6 +1065,8 @@ static int msm_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
> if (WARN_ON(!priv->pm_state))
> return -ENOENT;
>
> + pm_runtime_force_resume(dev);
nit: check return value of pm_runtime_force_resume()?
-Doug
___
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
On 2020-03-31 00:25, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:04 AM Kalyan Thota
wrote:
"The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
after calling the ->resume() callback"
DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
entering into XO shutdown.
Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep.
Changes in v1:
- Remove unnecessary checks in the function
_dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark).
Changes in v2:
- Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount
as suspend_late might not be called during suspend
call failures (Doug).
Signed-off-by: Kalyan Thota
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 33
+
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 4
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_kms.h | 2 ++
3 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
I am still 100% baffled by your patch and I never did quite understand
your response to my previous comments [1]. I think you're saying that
the problem you were facing is that if you call "suspend" but never
called "runtime_suspend" that the device stays active. Is that right?
If that's true, did you try something like this suggestion I made?
SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
pm_runtime_force_resume)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
index ce19f1d..2343cbd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
#include "dpu_encoder.h"
#include "dpu_plane.h"
#include "dpu_crtc.h"
+#include "dsi.h"
#define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
#include "dpu_trace.h"
@@ -325,6 +326,37 @@ static void dpu_kms_disable_commit(struct msm_kms
*kms)
pm_runtime_put_sync(_kms->pdev->dev);
}
+static void _dpu_kms_disable_dpu(struct msm_kms *kms)
+{
+ struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms = to_dpu_kms(kms);
+ struct drm_device *dev = dpu_kms->dev;
+ struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
+ struct msm_dsi *dsi;
+ int i;
+
+ dpu_kms_disable_commit(kms);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(priv->dsi); i++) {
+ if (!priv->dsi[i])
+ continue;
+ dsi = priv->dsi[i];
+ pm_runtime_put_sync(>pdev->dev);
+ }
+ pm_runtime_put_sync(dev->dev);
+
+ /* Increment the usagecount without triggering a resume */
+ pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev->dev);
+
+ pm_runtime_get_noresume(_kms->pdev->dev);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(priv->dsi); i++) {
+ if (!priv->dsi[i])
+ continue;
+ dsi = priv->dsi[i];
+ pm_runtime_get_noresume(>pdev->dev);
+ }
+}
My pm_runtime knowledge is pretty weak sometimes, but the above
function looks crazy. Maybe it's just me not understanding, but can
you please summarize what you're trying to accomplish?
-- I was trying to get the runtime callbacks via controlling the device
usage_count
Since the usage_count was already incremented by PM core, i was
decrementing and incrementing (without resume)
so that callbacks are triggered.
I have taken your suggestion on forcing the suspend instead of managing
it via usage_count.
i'll follow it up in the next patchset.
-Doug
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/r/114130f68c494f83303c51157e2c5...@codeaurora.org
___
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
___
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:04 AM Kalyan Thota wrote:
>
> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
> after calling the ->resume() callback"
>
> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
> entering into XO shutdown.
>
> Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep.
>
> Changes in v1:
> - Remove unnecessary checks in the function
>_dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark).
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Avoid using suspend_late to reset the usagecount
>as suspend_late might not be called during suspend
>call failures (Doug).
>
> Signed-off-by: Kalyan Thota
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 33
> +
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 4
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_kms.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
I am still 100% baffled by your patch and I never did quite understand
your response to my previous comments [1]. I think you're saying that
the problem you were facing is that if you call "suspend" but never
called "runtime_suspend" that the device stays active. Is that right?
If that's true, did you try something like this suggestion I made?
SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend, pm_runtime_force_resume)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> index ce19f1d..2343cbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include "dpu_encoder.h"
> #include "dpu_plane.h"
> #include "dpu_crtc.h"
> +#include "dsi.h"
>
> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> #include "dpu_trace.h"
> @@ -325,6 +326,37 @@ static void dpu_kms_disable_commit(struct msm_kms *kms)
> pm_runtime_put_sync(_kms->pdev->dev);
> }
>
> +static void _dpu_kms_disable_dpu(struct msm_kms *kms)
> +{
> + struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms = to_dpu_kms(kms);
> + struct drm_device *dev = dpu_kms->dev;
> + struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
> + struct msm_dsi *dsi;
> + int i;
> +
> + dpu_kms_disable_commit(kms);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(priv->dsi); i++) {
> + if (!priv->dsi[i])
> + continue;
> + dsi = priv->dsi[i];
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(>pdev->dev);
> + }
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev->dev);
> +
> + /* Increment the usagecount without triggering a resume */
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev->dev);
> +
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(_kms->pdev->dev);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(priv->dsi); i++) {
> + if (!priv->dsi[i])
> + continue;
> + dsi = priv->dsi[i];
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(>pdev->dev);
> + }
> +}
My pm_runtime knowledge is pretty weak sometimes, but the above
function looks crazy. Maybe it's just me not understanding, but can
you please summarize what you're trying to accomplish?
-Doug
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/114130f68c494f83303c51157e2c5...@codeaurora.org
___
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
On 2020-03-25 21:20, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:40 AM Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:35 AM Doug Anderson
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kalyan Thota wrote:
> >
> > "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
> > before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
> > after calling the ->resume() callback"
> >
> > DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
> > suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
> > devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
> > already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
> > and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
> > entering into XO shutdown.
> >
> > Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep.
> >
> > Changes in v1:
> > - Remove unnecessary checks in the function
> > _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark).
>
> I'm wondering what happened with my feedback on v1, AKA:
>
>
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=VxzEV40g+ieuEN+7o=34+wm8mho8o7t5za1yosx7s...@mail.gmail.com
>
> Maybe you didn't see it? ...or if you or Rob think I'm way off base
> (always possible) then please tell me so.
>
-- I didn't notice your comments earlier. Apologies !!
At least w/ the current patch, disable_dpu should not be called for
screen-off (although I'd hope if all the screens are off the device
would suspend).
OK, that's good.
-- Rob has answered it, with current change disable_dpu will only be
called during pm_suspend.
But I won't claim to be a pm expert.. so not really
sure if this is the best approach or not. I don't think our
arrangement of sub-devices under a parent is completely abnormal, so
it does feel like there should be a simpler solution..
I think the other arguments about asymmetry are still valid and I've
fixed bugs around this type of thing in the past. For instance, see
commit f7ccbed656f7 ("drm/rockchip: Suspend DP late").
* What happens if suspend is aborted partway through (by getting a
wakeup even as you're suspending, for instance)? In such a case some
of the normal suspend calls will be called but "suspend_late" won't be
called. Does that mess up your counting?
-- I understand this concern, i'll explore a bit more on how to handle
"failed to suspend","early awake"
cases (to restore the usage_count) since suspend_late wont be called.
*From your description, it sure seems like this part of the
runtime_pm.rst doc is relevant to you:
Did I misunderstand and this isn't what you want? Looking a bit
further, maybe the right thing is to use the "SMART_SUSPEND" flag?
-- if you notice in the device_prepare
(https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/base/power/main.c#L1913)
there is a pm_runtime_get_noresume at L1931, which will increment the
usagecount before triggering client prepare call, hence implementing
prepare wont fetch us much.
This appears to be more for the cases when device is runtime suspended
and suspend followed later
"one example usecase that i can think of, is screen timeout after that
suspend is triggered"
currently the problem i am looking at is that
PM Core does +1 in device prepare
DPU driver does -1 in suspend
DPU driver does +1 in suspend late ( look for right place )
PM core does -1 in device complete
i'll get back after exploring a bit.
-Doug
___
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:40 AM Rob Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:35 AM Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kalyan Thota
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
> > > before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
> > > after calling the ->resume() callback"
> > >
> > > DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
> > > suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
> > > devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
> > > already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
> > > and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
> > > entering into XO shutdown.
> > >
> > > Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep.
> > >
> > > Changes in v1:
> > > - Remove unnecessary checks in the function
> > > _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark).
> >
> > I'm wondering what happened with my feedback on v1, AKA:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=VxzEV40g+ieuEN+7o=34+wm8mho8o7t5za1yosx7s...@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > Maybe you didn't see it? ...or if you or Rob think I'm way off base
> > (always possible) then please tell me so.
> >
>
> At least w/ the current patch, disable_dpu should not be called for
> screen-off (although I'd hope if all the screens are off the device
> would suspend).
OK, that's good.
> But I won't claim to be a pm expert.. so not really
> sure if this is the best approach or not. I don't think our
> arrangement of sub-devices under a parent is completely abnormal, so
> it does feel like there should be a simpler solution..
I think the other arguments about asymmetry are still valid and I've
fixed bugs around this type of thing in the past. For instance, see
commit f7ccbed656f7 ("drm/rockchip: Suspend DP late").
-Doug
___
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:35 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kalyan Thota wrote: > > > > "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > > before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > > after calling the ->resume() callback" > > > > DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > > suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > > devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > > already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > > and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > > entering into XO shutdown. > > > > Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep. > > > > Changes in v1: > > - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > > _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). > > I'm wondering what happened with my feedback on v1, AKA: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=VxzEV40g+ieuEN+7o=34+wm8mho8o7t5za1yosx7s...@mail.gmail.com > > Maybe you didn't see it? ...or if you or Rob think I'm way off base > (always possible) then please tell me so. > At least w/ the current patch, disable_dpu should not be called for screen-off (although I'd hope if all the screens are off the device would suspend). But I won't claim to be a pm expert.. so not really sure if this is the best approach or not. I don't think our arrangement of sub-devices under a parent is completely abnormal, so it does feel like there should be a simpler solution.. BR, -R ___ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi, On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kalyan Thota wrote: > > "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > after calling the ->resume() callback" > > DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > entering into XO shutdown. > > Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep. > > Changes in v1: > - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). I'm wondering what happened with my feedback on v1, AKA: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=VxzEV40g+ieuEN+7o=34+wm8mho8o7t5za1yosx7s...@mail.gmail.com Maybe you didn't see it? ...or if you or Rob think I'm way off base (always possible) then please tell me so. Thanks! -Doug ___ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:06 AM Kalyan Thota wrote:
>
> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
> after calling the ->resume() callback"
>
> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
> entering into XO shutdown.
>
> Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kalyan Thota
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 41
> +
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c | 7 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 14 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_kms.h | 2 ++
> 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> index cb08faf..6e103d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include "dpu_encoder.h"
> #include "dpu_plane.h"
> #include "dpu_crtc.h"
> +#include "dsi.h"
>
> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> #include "dpu_trace.h"
> @@ -250,6 +251,37 @@ static void dpu_kms_disable_commit(struct msm_kms *kms)
> pm_runtime_put_sync(_kms->pdev->dev);
> }
>
> +static void _dpu_kms_disable_dpu(struct msm_kms *kms)
> +{
> + struct drm_device *dev;
> + struct msm_drm_private *priv;
> + struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms;
> + int i = 0;
> + struct msm_dsi *dsi;
> +
> + dpu_kms = to_dpu_kms(kms);
> + dev = dpu_kms->dev;
> + if (!dev) {
> + DPU_ERROR("invalid device\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + priv = dev->dev_private;
> + if (!priv) {
> + DPU_ERROR("invalid private data\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + dpu_kms_disable_commit(kms);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(priv->dsi); i++) {
> + if (!priv->dsi[i])
> + continue;
> + dsi = priv->dsi[i];
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(>pdev->dev);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static ktime_t dpu_kms_vsync_time(struct msm_kms *kms, struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> {
> struct drm_encoder *encoder;
> @@ -683,6 +715,7 @@ static void dpu_irq_uninstall(struct msm_kms *kms)
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> .debugfs_init= dpu_kms_debugfs_init,
> #endif
> + .disable_dpu = _dpu_kms_disable_dpu,
> };
>
> static void _dpu_kms_mmu_destroy(struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms)
> @@ -1053,7 +1086,15 @@ static int __maybe_unused dpu_runtime_resume(struct
> device *dev)
> return rc;
> }
>
> +
> +static int __maybe_unused dpu_pm_suspend_late(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct dev_pm_ops dpu_pm_ops = {
> + SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(dpu_pm_suspend_late, NULL)
> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(dpu_runtime_suspend, dpu_runtime_resume, NULL)
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> index 55ea4bc2..3d3740e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> @@ -154,12 +154,19 @@ static int dsi_dev_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int __maybe_unused dsi_pm_suspend_late(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct of_device_id dt_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" },
> {}
> };
>
> static const struct dev_pm_ops dsi_pm_ops = {
> + SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(dsi_pm_suspend_late, NULL)
> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_dsi_runtime_suspend, msm_dsi_runtime_resume,
> NULL)
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> index e4b750b..12ec1c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> @@ -1038,6 +1038,7 @@ static int msm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct drm_device *ddev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> struct msm_drm_private *priv = ddev->dev_private;
> + struct msm_kms *kms = priv->kms;
>
> if (WARN_ON(priv->pm_state))
> drm_atomic_state_put(priv->pm_state);
> @@ -1049,6 +1050,11 @@ static int msm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> + if (kms->funcs->disable_dpu)
> + kms->funcs->disable_dpu(kms);
> +
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1067,6 +1073,13 @@ static int msm_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
>
> return ret;
> }
> +
> +static int msm_pm_suspend_late(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> #endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:05 AM Kalyan Thota wrote:
>
> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
> after calling the ->resume() callback"
>
> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
> entering into XO shutdown.
>
> Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kalyan Thota
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 41
> +
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c | 7 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 14 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_kms.h | 2 ++
> 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> index cb08faf..6e103d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include "dpu_encoder.h"
> #include "dpu_plane.h"
> #include "dpu_crtc.h"
> +#include "dsi.h"
>
> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> #include "dpu_trace.h"
> @@ -250,6 +251,37 @@ static void dpu_kms_disable_commit(struct msm_kms *kms)
> pm_runtime_put_sync(_kms->pdev->dev);
> }
>
> +static void _dpu_kms_disable_dpu(struct msm_kms *kms)
> +{
> + struct drm_device *dev;
> + struct msm_drm_private *priv;
> + struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms;
> + int i = 0;
> + struct msm_dsi *dsi;
> +
> + dpu_kms = to_dpu_kms(kms);
> + dev = dpu_kms->dev;
> + if (!dev) {
> + DPU_ERROR("invalid device\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + priv = dev->dev_private;
> + if (!priv) {
> + DPU_ERROR("invalid private data\n");
> + return;
> + }
the !dev and !priv checks can be dropped.. these aren't things a user
should hit, and if I screw somethign up in development and hit that
case, I'd rather see a stack trace
otherwise, I think it looks reasonable
BR,
-R
> +
> + dpu_kms_disable_commit(kms);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(priv->dsi); i++) {
> + if (!priv->dsi[i])
> + continue;
> + dsi = priv->dsi[i];
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(>pdev->dev);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static ktime_t dpu_kms_vsync_time(struct msm_kms *kms, struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> {
> struct drm_encoder *encoder;
> @@ -683,6 +715,7 @@ static void dpu_irq_uninstall(struct msm_kms *kms)
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> .debugfs_init= dpu_kms_debugfs_init,
> #endif
> + .disable_dpu = _dpu_kms_disable_dpu,
> };
>
> static void _dpu_kms_mmu_destroy(struct dpu_kms *dpu_kms)
> @@ -1053,7 +1086,15 @@ static int __maybe_unused dpu_runtime_resume(struct
> device *dev)
> return rc;
> }
>
> +
> +static int __maybe_unused dpu_pm_suspend_late(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct dev_pm_ops dpu_pm_ops = {
> + SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(dpu_pm_suspend_late, NULL)
> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(dpu_runtime_suspend, dpu_runtime_resume, NULL)
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> index 55ea4bc2..3d3740e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.c
> @@ -154,12 +154,19 @@ static int dsi_dev_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int __maybe_unused dsi_pm_suspend_late(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct of_device_id dt_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" },
> {}
> };
>
> static const struct dev_pm_ops dsi_pm_ops = {
> + SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(dsi_pm_suspend_late, NULL)
> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_dsi_runtime_suspend, msm_dsi_runtime_resume,
> NULL)
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> index e4b750b..12ec1c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> @@ -1038,6 +1038,7 @@ static int msm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct drm_device *ddev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> struct msm_drm_private *priv = ddev->dev_private;
> + struct msm_kms *kms = priv->kms;
>
> if (WARN_ON(priv->pm_state))
> drm_atomic_state_put(priv->pm_state);
> @@ -1049,6 +1050,11 @@ static int msm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> + if (kms->funcs->disable_dpu)
> + kms->funcs->disable_dpu(kms);
> +
> + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1067,6 +1073,13 @@ static int
