Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for
 IRQ chips
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
References: <1447166377-19707-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com>
 <1447166377-19707-2-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com>
 <7hio56dctz.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <5645A6F6.6020202@nvidia.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511131456440.3987@nanos>
CC: Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <5649A603.6020308@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:46:43 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511131456440.3987@nanos>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2209
Lines: 55


On 13/11/15 20:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 12/11/15 23:20, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> If all the RPM devices in the domain go idle, it will be powered off
>>> independently of the status of the irqchip because the irqchip isn't
>>> using RPM. 
>>
>> That's dependent on how the irqchip uses these helpers. If these helpers
>> invoke RPM then that will not be the case.
> 
> You need a very proper description of how that domain is working. If
> all devices are idle, it's not necessary correct to power down the
> irqchip as is might serve other devices as well.

Agreed. The irqchip should only be powered down if there are no
interrupts in-use/requested. Runtime-pm will keep a reference count for
all requested IRQs.

> OTOH, if it can be powered down then all idle devices need to release
> the irq they requested because request_irq() would hold a ref on the
> power domain.

Yes.

> I have no idea how you can describe that proper.

Do you mean properly describe the interaction between runtime-pm and the
irqchip?

>>> Is there a longer-term plan to handle the irqchips as a "normal" device
>>> and use RPM?  IMO, that approach would be helpful even for irqchips that
>>> share power domains with CPUs, since there are efforts working towards
>>> using genpd/RPM to manage CPUs/clusters.
>>
>> That would ideal. However, the majority of irqchips today
>> create/register them with IRQCHIP_DECLARE() and not as "normal" devices.
>> Therefore, I was reluctant to add "struct device" to the irqchip
>> structure. However, if this is what you would prefer and Thomas is ok
>> with it, then that would be fine with me.
> 
> I have no objections against that, but how is the 'struct device'
> going to be initialized?

It would be initialised by the irqchip driver. However, it would be
optional. The genirq core could simply check to see if the chip->dev
member is initialised and if so enable runtime-pm.

Cheers
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/