lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device
From
Date
[ +Lorenzo ]

On 09/03/18 04:50, Tomasz Figa wrote:
[...]
>>> Now we need a way to do the check. Perhaps for the time being it would
>>> be enough to just check for the power-domains property in DT?
>>
>>
>> AFAICS, it might be as simple as arm_smmu_probe() doing this:
>>
>> /*
>> * We want to avoid touching dev->power.lock in fastpaths unless
>> * it's really going to do something useful - pm_runtime_enabled()
>> * can serve as an ideal proxy for that decision.
>> */
>> if (dev->pm_domain)
>> pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>>
>> or maybe even just gate all the calls with "if (smmu->dev.pm_domain)"
>> directly (like pcie-mediatek does), but I'm not sure which would be
>> conceptually cleaner.
>
> Okay, that was easier than I expected. Thanks. :)
>
> Actually, there is one more thing that might need rechecking. Are you
> sure that dev->pm_domain is NULL for the devices, for which we don't
> want runtime PM to be enabled? I think ACPI was mentioned and ACPI
> includes the concept of PM domains.

Thanks for pointing that out - thankfully, I've confirmed that the SMMUs
on my Juno don't have dev->pm_domain set when booting with ACPI, and
double-checking the ACPI code I think we're OK here. Since the SMMUs are
only described in the static IORT table and not in the ACPI namespace,
they won't have the ACPI companion device that acpi_dev_pm_attach()
looks for, and thus should always be ignored. Lorenzo, do I have that right?

Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-09 18:37    [W:0.057 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site