Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM / Runtime: let rpm_resume fail if rpm disabled and device suspended. | Date | Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:26:14 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:11:32 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > For reasons having nothing to do with Allen's suggested change, I > > > wonder if we shouldn't replace this line with something like: > > > > > > - else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended > > > + else if (dev->power.disable > 0 && !dev->power.is_suspended > > > && dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE) > > > retval = 1; > > > > > > It seems that I've been bitten by this several times in the past. > > > When a device is disabled for runtime PM, and more or less permanently > > > stuck in the RPM_ACTIVE state, calls to pm_runtime_resume() or > > > pm_runtime_get_sync() shouldn't fail. > > > > > > For example, suppose some devices of a certain type support runtime > > > power management but others don't. We naturally want to call > > > pm_runtime_disable() for the ones that don't. But we also want the > > > same driver to work for all the devices, which means that > > > pm_runtime_get_sync() should return success -- otherwise the driver > > > will think that something has gone wrong. > > > > > > Rafael, what do you think? > > > > That condition is there specifically to take care of the system suspend > > code path. It means that if runtime PM is disabled, but it only has been > > disabled by the system suspend code path, we should treat the device as > > "active" (ie. return 1). That won't work after the proposed change. > > Ah, yes, quite true. Okay, suppose we replace that line with just: > > + else if (dev->power.disable > 0 > > > I guess drivers that want to work with devices where runtime PM may be > > disabled can just check the return value of rpm_resume() for -EACCES? > > They could, but it's extra work and it's extremely easy to forget > about. I'd prefer not to do things that way.
In that case we need to audit all code that checks the return value of __pm_runtime_resume() to verify that it doesn't depend on the current behavior in any way. It shouldn't, but still.
Also we probably should drop the -EACCES return value from rpm_resume() in the same patch, because it specifically only covers the dev->power.disable > 0 case (which BTW is consistent with the suspend side of things, so I'm totally unsure about that being the right thing to do to be honest).
Rafael
| |