Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] PM-runtime: Check supplier_preactivated before release supplier | From | Peter Wang <> | Date | Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:49:46 +0800 |
| |
On 6/27/22 10:14 PM, Greg KH 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. > > thanks,
Hi Gerg,
Good point! you are right, I wont change api next version
Thank you for review
> greg k-h
| |