Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:27:45 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] PM-runtime: Check supplier_preactivated before release supplier |
| |
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:14 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:07:55PM +0800, peter.wang@mediatek.com wrote: > > From: Peter Wang <peter.wang@mediatek.com> > > > > With divice link of DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME, if consumer call pm_runtime_get_suppliers > > to prevent supplier enter suspend, pm_runtime_release_supplier should > > check supplier_preactivated before let supplier enter suspend. > > > > If the link is drop or release, bypass check supplier_preactivated. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Wang <peter.wang@mediatek.com> > > --- > > drivers/base/core.c | 2 +- > > drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- > > include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 5 +++-- > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c > > index 7cd789c4985d..3b9cc559928f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c > > @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static void device_link_release_fn(struct work_struct *work) > > /* Ensure that all references to the link object have been dropped. */ > > device_link_synchronize_removal(); > > > > - pm_runtime_release_supplier(link, true); > > + pm_runtime_release_supplier(link, true, true); > > > > put_device(link->consumer); > > put_device(link->supplier); > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c > > index 676dc72d912d..3c4f425937a1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c > > @@ -314,10 +314,19 @@ static int rpm_get_suppliers(struct device *dev) > > * and if @check_idle is set, check if that device is idle (and so it can be > > * suspended). > > */ > > -void pm_runtime_release_supplier(struct device_link *link, bool check_idle) > > +void pm_runtime_release_supplier(struct device_link *link, bool check_idle, > > + bool drop) > > This is just making this horrible api even worse. Now there are 2 > boolean flags required, 2 more than really should even be here at all. > Every time you see this function being used, you will now have to look > up the definition to see what it really does. > > Please make a new function that calls the internal function with the > flag set properly, so that it is obvious what is happening when the call > is made. > > and really, the same thing should be done for the check_idle flag, > that's not good either.
Agreed, and let me take care of this.
| |