Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 19:47:23 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>,
        Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
        Nadav Haklai <nadavh@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Prevent suspend to RAM
Message-ID: <20190205194723.6d567b4e@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <20190205112857.GB13620@t480s.localdomain>
References: <20190205110728.11451-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
        <20190205112857.GB13620@t480s.localdomain>
Organization: Bootlin
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Vivien,

Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 5 Feb 2019
11:28:57 -0500:

> Hi Miquel,
> 
> On Tue,  5 Feb 2019 12:07:28 +0100, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> 
> > +/* There is no suspend to RAM support at DSA level yet, the switch configuration
> > + * would be lost after a power cycle so prevent it to be suspended.
> > + */
> > +static int __maybe_unused mv88e6xxx_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int __maybe_unused mv88e6xxx_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}  
> 
> The code looks good but my only concern is -EOPNOTSUPP. In this
> context this code is specific to callbacks targeting bridge and
> switchdev, while the dev_pm_ops are completely parallel to DSA.
> 
> It is intuitive but given Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt, this
> will default to being interpreted as a fatal error, while -EBUSY
> seems to keep the device in an 'active' state in a saner way.
> 
> I don't understand yet how to properly tell PM core that suspend to RAM
> isn't supported. If an error code different from -EAGAIN or -EBUSY
> is the way to go, I'm good with it:

I do share your concern and I went through the Documentation but I did
not find a unified way to tell the PM core the feature is unsupported.

By grepping code, I realized returning -EOPNOTSUPP was a recurrent
alternative so here we are. I also considered -EBUSY but it seems more
like a "I cannot right now" and -EAGAIN which is more a "try again
soon". Anyway, no matter the error code returned, I'm not sure if the PM
core actually cares?
 
> Reviewed-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Vivien


Thanks,
Miquèl