Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752408AbdFTOS5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:18:57 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:33973 "EHLO mail-qt0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106AbdFTOSz (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:18:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1497965895-11486-1-git-send-email-mperttunen@nvidia.com> References: <1497965895-11486-1-git-send-email-mperttunen@nvidia.com> From: Ulf Hansson Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:18:48 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PM / Domains: Call driver's noirq callbacks To: Mikko Perttunen Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4085 Lines: 119 On 20 June 2017 at 15:38, Mikko Perttunen wrote: > Currently genpd installs its own suspend_noirq, resume_noirq, > and poweroff_noirq callbacks, but never calls down to the driver's > corresponding callbacks. Add these calls. > > Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen > --- > v2: > - Moved pm_generic_suspend_noirq to before pm_runtime_force_suspend, > and correspondingly pm_generic_resume_noirq after > pm_runtime_force_resume > - Added new pm_genpd_poweroff_noirq callback that is identical to > pm_genpd_suspend_noirq but calls the appropriate driver callback > > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > index d3f1d96f75e9..b070ee58186d 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > @@ -919,6 +919,10 @@ static int pm_genpd_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) > if (dev->power.wakeup_path && genpd_dev_active_wakeup(genpd, dev)) > return 0; > > + ret = pm_generic_suspend_noirq(dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > if (genpd->dev_ops.stop && genpd->dev_ops.start) { > ret = pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev); > if (ret) > @@ -961,6 +965,10 @@ static int pm_genpd_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) > if (genpd->dev_ops.stop && genpd->dev_ops.start) > ret = pm_runtime_force_resume(dev); > > + ret = pm_generic_resume_noirq(dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > return ret; > } > > @@ -1015,6 +1023,46 @@ static int pm_genpd_thaw_noirq(struct device *dev) > } > > /** > + * pm_genpd_poweroff_noirq - Completion of hibernation of device in an > + * I/O PM domain. > + * @dev: Device to poweroff. > + * > + * Stop the device and remove power from the domain if all devices in it have > + * been stopped. > + */ > +static int pm_genpd_poweroff_noirq(struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct generic_pm_domain *genpd; > + int ret; > + > + dev_dbg(dev, "%s()\n", __func__); > + > + genpd = dev_to_genpd(dev); > + if (IS_ERR(genpd)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (dev->power.wakeup_path && genpd_dev_active_wakeup(genpd, dev)) > + return 0; > + > + ret = pm_generic_poweroff_noirq(dev); The only difference between pm_genpd_suspend_noirq() and pm_genpd_poweroff_noirq() is the above line. Can we re-factor the code so we avoid open code here, please. > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + if (genpd->dev_ops.stop && genpd->dev_ops.start) { > + ret = pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > + > + genpd_lock(genpd); > + genpd->suspended_count++; > + genpd_sync_power_off(genpd, true, 0); > + genpd_unlock(genpd); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +/** > * pm_genpd_restore_noirq - Start of restore of device in an I/O PM domain. > * @dev: Device to resume. > * > @@ -1493,7 +1541,7 @@ int pm_genpd_init(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, > genpd->domain.ops.resume_noirq = pm_genpd_resume_noirq; > genpd->domain.ops.freeze_noirq = pm_genpd_freeze_noirq; > genpd->domain.ops.thaw_noirq = pm_genpd_thaw_noirq; > - genpd->domain.ops.poweroff_noirq = pm_genpd_suspend_noirq; > + genpd->domain.ops.poweroff_noirq = pm_genpd_poweroff_noirq; > genpd->domain.ops.restore_noirq = pm_genpd_restore_noirq; The pm_genpd_restore_noirq() doesn't invokes the lower level ->restore_noirq() callbacks. If you are going to change that for the *poweroff* callback, certainly we should change that also for the *restore* callbacks as well. Don't you think? Moreover, what about the freeze and thaw callbacks, should these also walk the lower level callbacks? > genpd->domain.ops.complete = pm_genpd_complete; > > -- > 2.1.4 > Kind regards Uffe