Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v16 2/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device | From | Robin Murphy <> | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:55:33 +0100 |
| |
Hi Vivek,
On 2018-09-25 6:56 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > Hi Robin, Will, > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:41 AM Vivek Gautam > <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Robin, >> >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:52 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:22 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:38 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Tomasz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/7/2018 2:46 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>>> Hi Vivek, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:46 PM Vivek Gautam >>>>>> <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>>>>> From: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks >>>>>>> gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without >>>>>>> the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those places >>>>>>> separately. >>>>>>> Global locks are also initialized before enabling runtime pm as the >>>>>>> runtime_resume() calls device_reset() which does tlb_sync_global() >>>>>>> that ultimately requires locks to be initialized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org> >>>>>>> [vivek: Cleanup pm runtime calls] >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org> >>>>>>> Tested-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> @@ -2215,10 +2281,17 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>>> if (!bitmap_empty(smmu->context_map, ARM_SMMU_MAX_CBS)) >>>>>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "removing device with active domains!\n"); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + arm_smmu_rpm_get(smmu); >>>>>>> /* Turn the thing off */ >>>>>>> writel(sCR0_CLIENTPD, ARM_SMMU_GR0_NS(smmu) + ARM_SMMU_GR0_sCR0); >>>>>>> + arm_smmu_rpm_put(smmu); >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (pm_runtime_enabled(smmu->dev)) >>>>>>> + pm_runtime_force_suspend(smmu->dev); >>>>>>> + else >>>>>>> + clk_bulk_disable(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); >>>>>>> + clk_bulk_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); >>>>>> Aren't we missing pm_runtime_disable() here? We'll have the enable >>>>>> count unbalanced if the driver is removed and probed again. >>>>> >>>>> pm_runtime_force_suspend() does a pm_runtime_disable() also if i am not >>>>> wrong. >>>>> And, as mentioned in a previous thread [1], we were seeing a warning >>>>> which we avoided >>>>> by keeping force_suspend(). >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/8/124 >>>> >>>> I see, thanks. I didn't realize that pm_runtime_force_suspend() >>>> already disables runtime PM indeed. Sorry for the noise. >>> >>> Hi Tomasz, >>> No problem. Thanks for looking back at it. >>> >>> Hi Robin, >>> If you are fine with this series, then can you please consider giving >>> Reviewed-by, so that we are certain that this series will go in the next merge >>> window. >>> Thanks >> >> Gentle ping. >> You ack will be very helpful in letting Will pull this series for 4.20. >> Thanks. > > I would really appreciate if you could provide your ack for this series. > Or if there are any concerns, I am willing to address them.
Apologies, I thought I'd replied to say I'd be getting to this shortly, but apparently not :(
FWIW, "shortly" is now tomorrow - I don't *think* there's anything outstanding, but given the number of subtleties we've turned up so far I do just want one last thorough double-check to make sure.
Thanks, Robin.
| |