Messages in this thread | | | From | Vivek Gautam <> | Date | Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:36:24 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v16 0/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add runtime pm/sleep support |
| |
Hi Will,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:27 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Vivek, > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 08:15:36PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote: > > This series provides the support for turning on the arm-smmu's > > clocks/power domains using runtime pm. This is done using > > device links between smmu and client devices. The device link > > framework keeps the two devices in correct order for power-cycling > > across runtime PM or across system-wide PM. > > > > With addition of a new device link flag DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_SUPPLIER [7], > > the device links created between arm-smmu and its clients will be > > automatically purged when arm-smmu driver unbinds from its device. > > > > As not all implementations support clock/power gating, we are checking > > for a valid 'smmu->dev's pm_domain' to conditionally enable the runtime > > power management for such smmu implementations that can support it. > > Otherwise, the clocks are turned to be always on in .probe until .remove. > > With conditional runtime pm now, we avoid touching dev->power.lock > > in fastpaths for smmu implementations that don't need to do anything > > useful with pm_runtime. > > This lets us to use the much-argued pm_runtime_get_sync/put_sync() > > calls in map/unmap callbacks so that the clients do not have to > > worry about handling any of the arm-smmu's power. > > > > This series also adds support for Qcom's arm-smmu-v2 variant that > > has different clocks and power requirements. > > > > Previous version of this patch series is @ [1]. > > > > Build tested the series based on 4.19-rc1. > > I'm going to send my pull request to Joerg early next week (probably > Monday), but I'm not keen to include this whilst it has outstanding comments > from Ulf. Your errata workaround patch is in a similar situation, with > outstanding comments from Robin.
I am going to address Ulf's comments for pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() calls in system sleep callbacks and respin the series unless he has any more comments regarding the early/late nature of suspend/resume. So will it do if I respin the series today after waiting for Ulf?
The workaround series is going for a discussion now, so i think it can wait. Thanks
Best regards Vivek > > Will > _______________________________________________ > iommu mailing list > iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
-- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |