On Fri, 1 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Introduce a new per-device flag power.force_direct_complete that will
> instruct the PM core to let that device remain in runtime suspend when
> the system goes into a sleep power state, regardless of the PM state of
> any of its descendants.
>
> This is needed because otherwise it would be needed to get dozens of
> drivers to implement the prepare() callback and be runtime PM active
> even if they don't have a 1-to-1 relationship with a piece of HW.
>
> This only applies to devices that aren't wakeup-capable, as those would
> need to setup their IRQs as wakeup-capable in their prepare() callbacks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm sending this as a standalone patch as suggested by Alan.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tomeu
>
> ---
> Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt | 10 ++++++++++
> drivers/base/power/main.c | 14 ++++++++++----
> include/linux/pm.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> index 44fe1d2..3b0c68d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
> @@ -665,6 +665,16 @@ as appropriate. This only applies to system suspend
> transitions that are not
> related to hibernation (see Documentation/power/devices.txt for more
> information).
>
> +For devices that know that can remain runtime suspended when the system
> +transitions to a sleep state regardless of the PM state of their descendants,
> +the flag power.force_direct_complete can be set on their device structures.
> +This can be useful when a real device has several virtual devices as
> +descendants and it would be very cumbersome to make sure that they return a
> +positive value in their .prepare() callback and have runtime PM enabled.
> Usage
> +of power.force_direct_complete is only allowed to devices that aren't
> +wakeup-capable, as they would need to set their IRQs as wakeups in their
> +.prepare() callbacks before the system transitions to a sleep state.
> +
This seems okay to me. It specifically states that
force_direct_complete should be used only when it is known that the PM
states of the descendant devices don't matter.
> The PM core does its best to reduce the probability of race conditions
> between
> the runtime PM and system suspend/resume (and hibernation) callbacks by
> carrying
> out the following operations:
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> index 3d874ec..7b962f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> @@ -1438,7 +1438,9 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct device *dev,
> pm_message_t state, bool async)
> if (parent) {
> spin_lock_irq(&parent->power.lock);
>
> - dev->parent->power.direct_complete = false;
> + if (!dev->parent->power.force_direct_complete)
> + dev->parent->power.direct_complete = false;
> +
> if (dev->power.wakeup_path
> && !dev->parent->power.ignore_children)
> dev->parent->power.wakeup_path = true;
> @@ -1605,9 +1607,13 @@ static int device_prepare(struct device *dev,
> pm_message_t state)
> * will do the same thing with all of its descendants". This only
> * applies to suspend transitions, however.
> */
> - spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> - dev->power.direct_complete = ret > 0 && state.event == PM_EVENT_SUSPEND;
> - spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> + if (state.event == PM_EVENT_SUSPEND) {
> + spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> + dev->power.direct_complete = ret > 0 ||
> + (dev->power.force_direct_complete &&
> + !device_can_wakeup(dev));
> + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> + }
> return 0;
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm.h b/include/linux/pm.h
> index 2d29c64..2e41cfd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm.h
> @@ -553,6 +553,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> bool ignore_children:1;
> bool early_init:1; /* Owned by the PM core */
> bool direct_complete:1; /* Owned by the PM core
> */
> + bool force_direct_complete:1;
> spinlock_t lock;
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> struct list_head entry;
Rafael, do you think we need a setter routine that acquires the
spinlock before turning on this bit?
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
