On 20 March 2013 22:58, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 20 March 2013 16:44, Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthu...@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>>> According the eMMC spec I can't see any requirement that the bus clock >>>>> needs to be on while a BKOPS is running. Moreover it is clearly stated >>>>> it is allowed to gate the bus clock for a device which indicates busy. >>>>> So, I can't see that this is needed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What if host is aggressive and wants to keep eMMC in sleep-mode and turn >>>> off >>>> VCC regulator during runtime power management? I believe that eMMC card >>>> needs VCC supply as well in addition to VCCQ to carry out BKOPS. Do you >>>> think that the block device also needs to take a reference for VCC >>>> regulator >>>> while BKOPS is started in runtime suspend of block device? >>> >>> >>> What you are thinking of would be exactly the same scenario as doing >>> "mmc_suspend_host" from a host runtime suspend callback, which have >>> been discussed here earlier. Right now, no up-streamed host driver is >>> doing this and I would guess it would never happen either. Anyway, >>> still worth to consider somehow. >> >> >> If any driver wants to implement this then the runtime PM code would be >> refactored again. So I guess we might want to think about this now itself? > > Refactored, no. > > It is just a new feature that needs to be added, should be a rather > simple patch. Since this kind of code has not been upstreamed for your > host driver I did not consider it in this initial step. Do you want me > to create an additional patch on top of this patchset? I can help out > if you like. > >> >> What about SD cards? For SD cards the runtime PM is not doing any advantage >> but instead waste cpu cycles with a timer interrupt and running noop runtime >> PM callbacks? I guess allowing to power off cards in such cases would have >> decent power savings. > > We will waste some cpu cycles, true. > > Do you think that will have bad impact on performance? In that case > why do we even bother doing runtime PM in host drivers and in many > other places in the kernel? Of course we could optmize the code and > only enable runtime PM if there are a corresponding runtime pm > callbacks implemented in the bus_ops, but is it needed? > >> >> >>> >>> Please have a look at below thread to find the answers to your questions: >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/19444/focus=19443 >>> >> >> Thanks a lot. I have missed this discussion :( >> I have some comments on the possible solutions: >> >> "In mmc bus_ops runtime callback, do a pm_runtime_get_sync("host plf >> device"), and vice verse in the runtime resume callback. This will >> prevent the host driver from entering runtime power save sate while >> for example doing BKOPS, thus preventing your host driver from doing >> mmc_suspend_host while BKOPS is running" >> >> [Sujit] In addition, probably we can allow host to turn off the clocks while >> carrying out BKOPS. But, how can we know whether card is done with BKOPS and >> is idle so that we can call mmc_suspend_host()? > > We are then going into details about how to implement IDLE BKOPS, > which is a bit out of scope for this patch, but let me try to comment > anyway. > > The initial patch for BKOPS could skip your consideration, and just > check for BKOPS complete once runtime suspend callback gets called.
Sorry, I mean when runtime resume get called... > This will then be rather simple to implement and work for all cases > but yours. I realize that a new blk request will be needed to move out > from BKOPS state then. > > The next step could be to schedule a timer/work when issuing BKOPS, > that polls for completion. I belive it should be rather simple to > extend the runtime pm callbacks with this support, right? > >> >> "Move mmc_suspend|resume_host from your host runtime callbacks, into >> the bus_ops runtime callbacks. Typically, when no BKOPS is needed >> mmc_suspend_host can be done." >> >> [Sujit] Doesn't it look like we are establishing parent child relationship >> here? If the card has nothing to do, suspend the host? > > Well, the naming of these functions are not correct. It is not the > host that actually gets suspended, it is the card. > > Right now these functions happens to be called when a host enters > suspend though, which indeed is also kind of strange. It would make > more sense to handle card suspend from the mmc/sdio bus instead; but > let's leave that for a separate discussion. :-) > > I also assume that if your host driver runtime pm callbacks calls > mmc_suspend|resume_host, your host driver system suspend|resume > callbacks must not - otherwise you will have races! Instead upper > layers like a power domain, must force your device into runtime > suspend when entering system suspend and vice verse when doing system > resume. These issues exists with or without my patches. > > >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Sujit > > Thanks a lot for comment, Sujit! > > Kind regards > Ulf Hansson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
