Hi Felipe,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Felipe Balbi <ba...@ti.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:48:39AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> >> Adding APIs to handle runtime power management on PHY
>> >> devices. PHY consumers may need to wake-up/suspend PHYs
>> >> when they work across autosuspend.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vi...@samsung.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> include/linux/usb/phy.h | 141
>> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> 1 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/phy.h b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>> >> index 6b5978f..01bf9c1 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>> >> @@ -297,4 +297,145 @@ static inline const char *usb_phy_type_string(enum
>> >> usb_phy_type type)
>> >> return "UNKNOWN PHY TYPE";
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >> +
>> >> +static inline void usb_phy_autopm_enable(struct usb_phy *x)
>> >> +{
>> >> + if (!x || !x->dev) {
>> >> + dev_err(x->dev, "no PHY or attached device available\n");
>> >> + return;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + pm_runtime_enable(x->dev);
>> >> +}
>> >
>> >
>> > IMO we need not have wrapper APIs for runtime_enable and runtime_disable
>> > here. Generally runtime_enable and runtime_disable is done in probe and
>> > remove of a driver respectively. So it's better to leave the
>> > runtime_enable/runtime_disable to be done in *phy provider* driver than
>> > having an API for it to be done by *phy user* driver. Felipe, what do you
>> > think?
>>
>> Thanks!!
>> That's very true, runtime_enable() and runtime_disable() calls are made by
>> *phy_provider* only. But a querry here.
>> Wouldn't in any case a PHY consumer might want to disable runtime_pm on PHY ?
>> Say, when consumer failed to suspend the PHY properly
>> (*put_sync(phy->dev)* fails), how much sure is the consumer about the
>> state of PHY ?
>
> no no, wait a minute. We might not want to enable runtime pm for the PHY
> until the UDC says it can handle runtime pm, no ? I guess this makes a
> bit of sense (at least in my head :-p).
>
> Imagine if PHY is runtime suspended but e.g. DWC3 isn't runtime pm
> enabled... Does it make sense to leave that control to the USB
> controller drivers ?
>
> I'm open for suggestions
Of course unless the PHY consumer can handle runtime PM for PHY,
PHY should not ideally be going into runtime_suspend.
Actually trying out few things, here are my observations
Enabling runtime_pm on PHY pushes PHY to go into runtime_suspend state.
But a device detection wakes up DWC3 controller, and if i don't wake
up PHY (using get_sync(phy->dev)) here
in runtime_resume() callback of DWC3, i don't get PHY back in active state.
So it becomes the duty of DWC3 controller to handle PHY's sleep and wake-up.
Thereby it becomes logical that DWC3 controller has the right to
enable runtime_pm
of PHY.
But there's a catch here. if there are multiple consumers of PHY (like
USB2 type PHY can
have DWC3 controller as well as EHCI/OHCI or even HSGadget) then in that case,
only one of the consumer can enable runtime_pm on PHY. So who decides this.
Aargh!! lot of confusion here :-(
>
> --
> balbi
--
Thanks & Regards
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
