lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] base: power: runtime: Export pm_runtime_get/put_suppliers
Hi Greg,


On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 06:00:47PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> The device link allows the pm framework to tie the supplier and
>> consumer. So, whenever the consumer is powered-on, the supplier
>> is powered-on first.
>>
>> There are however cases in which the consumer wants to power-on
>> the supplier, but not itself.
>> E.g., A Graphics or multimedia driver wants to power-on the SMMU
>> to unmap a buffer and finish the TLB operations without powering
>> on itself. Some of these unmap requests are coming from the
>> user space when the controller itself is not powered-up, and it
>> can be huge penalty in terms of power and latency to power-up
>> the graphics/mm controllers.
>> There can be an argument that the supplier should handle this case
>> on its own and there should not be a need for the consumer to
>> power-on the supplier. But as discussed on the thread [1] about
>> ARM-SMMU runtime pm, we don't want to introduce runtime pm calls
>> in atomic paths, such as in arm_smmu_unmap.
>>
>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9827825/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> index 027d159ac381..af169304ca13 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> @@ -1578,6 +1578,7 @@ void pm_runtime_get_suppliers(struct device *dev)
>>
>> device_links_read_unlock(idx);
>> }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_get_suppliers);
>
> We do not export symbols unless there are in-kernel users of them.
> Where is the patch that adds a user for these functions?

My apologies for not putting the changes for the user of these APIs.
I will be sending a patch for the user (which would be:
"drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c"). The patch will be included
with the arm-smmu runtime patch series. Right now I am facing issues
with the use of clk_bulk_*() APIs on 4.15-rc kernel.

But, I wanted to get opinions about this change since we had been
discussing about this in the arm-smmu runtime patch thread [1].

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9827825/


P.S.: A snippet of the change in the user of these APIs:

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c
index b23d33622f37..1ab629bbee69 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c
@@ -76,9 +76,9 @@ static int msm_iommu_unmap(struct msm_mmu *mmu,
uint64_t iova,
{
struct msm_iommu *iommu = to_msm_iommu(mmu);

- pm_runtime_get_sync(mmu->dev);
+ pm_runtime_get_suppliers(mmu->dev);
iommu_unmap(iommu->domain, iova, len);
- pm_runtime_put_sync(mmu->dev);
+ pm_runtime_put_suppliers(mmu->dev);
return 0;
}

regards
Vivek

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h



--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-08 14:40    [W:0.077 / U:3.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site