Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/omap: Fix suspend resume regression after
 platform data removal
To:     Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
CC:     <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, "Andrew F . Davis" <afd@ti.com>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com>,
        Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>,
        Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>,
        Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
References: <20200531193941.13179-1-tony@atomide.com>
 <20200531193941.13179-2-tony@atomide.com>
 <16ba1808-5c7f-573d-8dd0-c80cac2f476e@ti.com>
 <20200603140639.GG37466@atomide.com>
 <47e286dd-f87a-4440-5bde-1f7b53e8b672@ti.com>
 <20200609151943.GL37466@atomide.com>
 <9ed70121-2a53-d2b3-051a-88eb83e6c53f@ti.com>
 <d03dd04f-6f2c-25ba-fe1f-d5fc0dfb5c68@ti.com>
 <592501c9-2d94-b266-ae76-e383d3bffa29@ti.com>
 <20200616153042.GZ37466@atomide.com>
 <3f2855cc-48b8-ecb8-5d92-beeabe344b26@ti.com>
 <d0488631-e2d8-115f-9900-5838147ec674@ti.com>
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Message-ID: <8404d47b-33bb-499f-4d50-33501e7c5921@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:49:59 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d0488631-e2d8-115f-9900-5838147ec674@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 17/06/2020 09:04, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 16/06/2020 19:56, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/06/2020 18:30, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> [200616 13:02]:
>>>> On 11/06/2020 17:00, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>> I think, suspend might be fixed if all devices, which are now child of ti-sysc, will do
>>>>> pm_runtime_force_xxx() calls at noirq suspend stage by adding:
>>>>>
>>>>>       SET_NOIRQ_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
>>>>>                         pm_runtime_force_resume)
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I missing smth?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this almost exactly the same my patch does? I just used suspend_late
>>>> and resume_early. Is noirq phase better than late & early?
>>>
>>> Well up to you as far as I'm concerned. The noirq phase comes with serious
>>> limitations, for let's say i2c bus usage if needed. Probably also harder
>>> to debug for suspend and resume.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you can't use PM runtime force API at .suspend() stage as pm_runtime_get will still work and
>> there is no sync between suspend and pm_runtime.
>> The PM runtime force API can be used only during late/noirq as at this time pm_runtime is disabled.
> 
> Yes, but which one... Do you know what the diff is with late/noirq from driver's perspective? I guess noirq is atomic context, late is nto?

noirq is *not* atomic, jus IRQs (non-wakeup) will be disabled (disbale_irq())

> 
> Dispc's suspend uses synchronize_irq(), so that rules out noirq. Although the call is not needed if using noirq version, so that could also be managed with small change. But I wonder if there's any benefit in using noirq versus late.


-- 
Best regards,
grygorii