lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 1/5] PM / Runtime: Add getter for quering the IRQ safe option
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:47:17PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > On Wed 2014-09-24 15:50:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > Add a simple getter pm_runtime_is_irq_safe() for quering whether runtime
> > > PM IRQ safe was set or not.
> > >
> > > Various bus drivers implementing runtime PM may use choose to suspend
> > > differently based on IRQ safeness status of child driver (e.g. do not
> > > unprepare the clock if IRQ safe is not set).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> >
> > Are you sure this is good interface?
> >
> > "Tell me if another function works this or that way".
> >
> > That's certainly not traditional interface, and it seems dangerous to
> > me. Callbacks now have different semantic requirements based on value
> > of some flag...
> >
> > Would it be possible to have two sets of callbacks, one irq safe and
> > one not?
>
> Or maybe add a flag to the bus-specific device structures, indicating
> specifically whether or not the clock should be unprepared during a
> runtime suspend. Then individual drivers could set this flag or not,
> independent of the irq-safe setting.

What you're proposing is _less_ safe, because with your proposal, you
now have the possibility that drivers will tell runtime PM that it has
IRQ safe callbacks, but the bus code tries to prepare/unprepare the
clock, which causes a might-sleep-if warning.

This is fragile.

--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-24 22:21    [W:0.096 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site