Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757605Ab1D1BGE (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:06:04 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:58583 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752329Ab1D1BGC (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:06:02 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Colin Cross Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH 7/9] PM / Runtime: Generic clock manipulation rountines for runtime PM (v3) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:06:13 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.39-rc5+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linux PM mailing list , Kevin Hilman , LKML , Grant Likely , Len Brown , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, Magnus Damm , Alan Stern , Greg KH References: <201104130205.26988.rjw@sisk.pl> <201104280258.34694.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <201104280258.34694.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201104280306.13262.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4670 Lines: 130 On Thursday, April 28, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, April 28, 2011, Colin Cross wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > Many different platforms and subsystems may want to disable device > > > clocks during suspend and enable them during resume which is going to > > > be done in a very similar way in all those cases. For this reason, > > > provide generic routines for the manipulation of device clocks during > > > suspend and resume. > > > > > > Convert the ARM shmobile platform to using the new routines. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > --- > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This (hopefully final) version of the patch has a couple of bugs fixed in > > > clock_ops.c. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rafael > > > > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm_runtime.c | 140 ----------- > > > drivers/base/power/Makefile | 1 > > > drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c | 423 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 42 +++ > > > kernel/power/Kconfig | 4 > > > 5 files changed, 479 insertions(+), 131 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > +void pm_runtime_clk_remove(struct device *dev, const char *con_id) > > > +{ > > > + struct pm_runtime_clk_data *prd = __to_prd(dev); > > > + struct pm_clock_entry *ce; > > > + > > > + if (!prd) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + mutex_lock(&prd->lock); > > > + > > > + list_for_each_entry(ce, &prd->clock_list, node) > > Braces > > No, this is correct as is. > > > > + if (!con_id && !ce->con_id) { > > > + __pm_runtime_clk_remove(ce); > > > + break; > > > + } else if (!con_id || !ce->con_id) { > > > + continue; > > > + } else if (!strcmp(con_id, ce->con_id)) { > > > + __pm_runtime_clk_remove(ce); > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + > > > + mutex_unlock(&prd->lock); > > > +} > > > > > > +/** > > > + * pm_runtime_clk_acquire - Acquire a device clock. > > > + * @dev: Device whose clock is to be acquired. > > > + * @con_id: Connection ID of the clock. > > > + */ > > > +static void pm_runtime_clk_acquire(struct device *dev, > > > + struct pm_clock_entry *ce) > > > +{ > > > + ce->clk = clk_get(dev, ce->con_id); > > > + if (!IS_ERR(ce->clk)) { > > > + ce->clock_active = true; > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "Clock %s managed by runtime PM.\n", ce->con_id); > > > + } > > > +} > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * pm_runtime_clk_suspend - Disable clocks in a device's runtime PM clock list. > > > + * @dev: Device to disable the clocks for. > > > + */ > > > +int pm_runtime_clk_suspend(struct device *dev) > > > +{ > > > + struct pm_runtime_clk_data *prd = __to_prd(dev); > > > + struct pm_clock_entry *ce; > > > + > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "%s()\n", __func__); > > > + > > > + if (!prd) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + mutex_lock(&prd->lock); > > > + > > > + list_for_each_entry_reverse(ce, &prd->clock_list, node) { > > > + if (!ce->clk) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "Clock is not ready for runtime PM\n"); > > > + pm_runtime_clk_acquire(dev, ce); > > Why delay the call to clk_get until the first suspend? > > Because the clock framework need not be ready at the _add time. > > > Also, this will always print an error during the first call to suspend. > > That actually depends on the initial state of the device and the > assumption is that will be RPM_SUSPENDED, so _resume will be called > first. > > I can remove the message, but it's there for backwards compatibility with > the code this is intended to replace. > > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (ce->clock_active) { > > I don't think clock_active is necessary, and the name is misleading. > > It's not strictly necessary and "active" means "being used for runtime PM". > > > Why not use if (ce->clk)? > > Because _that_ would be confusing? Moreover, if the first clk_get() fails, this avoids repeating it during every suspend/resume (because it most probably is going to fail too). Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/