Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-211472-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:12:43 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>, ldewangan@nvidia.com
Cc: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>,
	Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, paulmck@kernel.org,
	apopple@nvidia.com, Michael van der Westhuizen <rmikey@meta.com>,
	"open list:I2C SUBSYSTEM HOST DRIVERS" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:TEGRA ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [i2c-tegra] Do not mark ACPI devices as irq safe
Message-ID: <ZmmQu15Z2acgAjZQ@gmail.com>
References: <20240606132708.1610308-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <ZmhHvpHlkxe4kid7@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZmhHvpHlkxe4kid7@smile.fi.intel.com>

Hello Andy,

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 03:49:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 06:27:07AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:

> > The problem arises because during __pm_runtime_resume(), the spinlock
> > &dev->power.lock is acquired before rpm_resume() is called. Later,
> > rpm_resume() invokes acpi_subsys_runtime_resume(), which relies on
> > mutexes, triggering the error.
> > 
> > To address this issue, devices on ACPI are now marked as not IRQ-safe,
> > considering the dependency of acpi_subsys_runtime_resume() on mutexes.
> 
> ...
> 
> While it's a move in the right direction, the real fix is to get rid of
> the IRQ safe PM hack completely.
> Look at how OMAP code was modified for
> the last few years and now it's pm_runtime_irq_safe()-free. The main
> (ab)users are SH code followed by Tegra drivers.

Thanks. 

I think these are two different goals here. This near term goal is just
fix the driver so it can use the pm_runtime_irq_safe() in a saner
way, avoiding calling mutexes inside spinlocks.

Getting rid of the IRQ safe PM seems to me to be more a long term
desirable goal, and unfortunately I cannot afford doing it now.

Laxman, what is your view on this topic?

--breno