lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 3/5] amba: Don't unprepare the clocks if device driver wants IRQ safe runtime PM
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> That makes it pretty horrid from the point of view of having bus
> management code, because we now have the management of the bus clock
> split between the bus layer and the device driver.
>
> This is /really/ a problem for runtime PM. Runtime PM permits there
> to be a bus layer involved - and runtime PM can also be coupled up
> to PM domains as well. For all this stuff, the context which the
> callbacks are called in depends on whether the driver itself has
> marked the device as having IRQ-safe callbacks.
>
> That's fine, but the bus and PM domain level code then /really/ needs
> to know what context they're being called in, so they know whether
> they can sleep or not, or they must to be written to always use
> non-sleeping functions so they work in both contexts. If we assume
> the former, then that implies that the irq-safe flag must never change
> state between a suspend and a resume.

If a bus subsystem or PM domain is going to allow its drivers to choose
between IRQ-safe and non-IRQ-safe runtime PM, then it is up to the
subsystem to come up with a way for drivers to indicate their choice.

I tend to agree with Rafael that testing dev->power.irq_safe should be
good enough, with no real need for a wrapper. But the subsystem can
use a different mechanism if it wants.

Bear in mind, however, that once the irq_safe flag has been set, the
runtime PM core offers no way to turn it off again.

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-03 17:01    [W:0.080 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site