Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1176601
| From | Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive |
| Date | 2015-07-03 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pI9YS-17f-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pI4mu-65u-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 2 July 2015 at 17:21, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >
> >> > Just because these sub-devices are virtual, it doesn't mean you can
> >> > ignore the way they interact with runtime PM.
> >>
> >> Fair enough, but then, how are we expected to be able to use the
> >> direct_complete facility if the core bails out if a descendant doesn't
> >> have runtime PM enabled?
> >>
> >> > In the case of ep_87 this doesn't matter. Endpoint devices (like all
> >> > devices) are in the SUSPENDED state by default when they are created,
> >> > and they never leave that state.
> >>
> >> I don't see why it doesn't matter for endpoints or the others. They
> >> don't have runtime PM enabled, so no ancestor will be able to do
> >> direct_complete.
> >
> > Ah, you're concerned about these lines near the start of
> > __device_suspend():
> >
> > if (dev->power.direct_complete) {
> > if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
> > pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> > if (pm_runtime_suspended_if_enabled(dev))
> > goto Complete;
> >
> > pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> > }
> > dev->power.direct_complete = false;
> > }
> >
> > Perhaps the pm_runtime_suspended_if_enabled() test should be changed to
> > pm_runtime_status_suspended(). Then it won't matter whether the
> > descendant devices are enabled for runtime PM.
>
> Yeah, that would remove the need for messing with the runtime PM
> enable status of descendant devices, but I wonder why Rafael went that
> way initially.
I forget the details. Probably it was just to be safe. We probably
thought that if a device was disabled for runtime PM then its runtime
PM status might not be accurate. But if direct_complete is set then it
may be reasonable to assume that the runtime PM status _is_ accurate.
> >> > A possible way around the problem is to use pm_suspend_ignore_children
> >> > on the uvcvideo interface. But I'm not sure that would be the right
> >> > thing to do.
> >>
> >> Would that mean that if a device has ignore_children then it could
> >> still do direct_complete even if its descendants weren't able to?
> >
> > I think we could justify that. The ignore_children flag means we can
> > communicate with the children even when the device is in runtime
> > suspend, so there's no reason to force the device to leave runtime
> > suspend during a system sleep.
>
> IIUIC, what you are proposing is to use ignore_children in a way
> similar to how force_direct_complete was used in this patch?
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/60198/focus=60292
That message doesn't contain a patch.
> That should work as well, but Rafael raised some objections and thus I
> went with the present direct_complete_default, which should work if we
> can relax the check as discussed above.
Rafael and I briefly discussed ignore_children while the original
direct_complete patch was being designed. We didn't come to any
definite conclusion and decided to forget about it for the time being.
Maybe now would be a good time to reconsider it.
Alan Stern
--
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/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2015-07-03 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> - 2015-07-03 16:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2015-07-03 17:20 +0200
csiph-web