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 RFC v1 1/1] scsi: pm: Leave runtime resume along if block
 layer PM is enabled
To:     Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
        hongwus@codeaurora.org, ziqichen@codeaurora.org,
        rnayak@codeaurora.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com, saravanak@google.com, salyzyn@google.com,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>
References: <1605249009-13752-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <1605249009-13752-2-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <97dea590-5f2e-b4e3-ac64-7c346761c523@acm.org>
 <20f447a438aa98afb18be4642c8888b3@codeaurora.org>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6d774277-b055-6924-cf2d-01e874ac3f7b@acm.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 20:38:11 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20f447a438aa98afb18be4642c8888b3@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/15/20 5:42 PM, Can Guo wrote:
> Actually, I am thinking about removing all the pm_runtime_set_active()
> codes in both scsi_bus_resume_common() and scsi_dev_type_resume() - we
> don't need to forcibly set the runtime PM status to RPM_ACTIVE for either
> SCSI host/target or SCSI devices.
> 
> Whenever we access one SCSI device, either block layer or somewhere in
> the path (e.g. throgh sg IOCTL, sg_open() calls scsi_autopm_get_device())
> should runtime resume the device first, and the runtime PM framework makes
> sure device's parent (and its parent's parent and so on)gets resumed as
> well.
> Thus, the pm_runtime_set_active() seems redundant. What do you think?

Hi Can,

It is not clear to me why the pm_runtime_set_active() calls occur in the
scsi_pm.c source file since the block layer automatically activates
block devices if necessary. Maybe these calls are a leftover from a time
when runtime suspended devices were not resumed automatically by the
block layer? Anyway, I'm fine with removing these calls.

Thanks,

Bart.