Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Sricharan" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v5 6/7] iommu/exynos: Add runtime pm support | Date | Sat, 22 Oct 2016 11:20:12 +0530 |
| |
Hi Marek,
>This patch adds runtime pm implementation, which is based on previous >suspend/resume code. SYSMMU controller is now being enabled/disabled mainly >from the runtime pm callbacks. System sleep callbacks relies on generic >pm_runtime_force_suspend/pm_runtime_force_resume helpers. To ensure >internal state consistency, additional lock for runtime pm transitions >was introduced. > >Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> >--- > drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c >index a959443e6f33..5e6d7bbf9b70 100644 >--- a/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c >+++ b/drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c >@@ -206,6 +206,7 @@ struct sysmmu_fault_info { > struct exynos_iommu_owner { > struct list_head controllers; /* list of sysmmu_drvdata.owner_node */ > struct iommu_domain *domain; /* domain this device is attached */ >+ struct mutex rpm_lock; /* for runtime pm of all sysmmus */ > }; > > /* >@@ -594,40 +595,46 @@ static int __init exynos_sysmmu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return 0; > } > >-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >-static int exynos_sysmmu_suspend(struct device *dev) >+static int __maybe_unused exynos_sysmmu_suspend(struct device *dev) > { > struct sysmmu_drvdata *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > struct device *master = data->master; > > if (master) { >- pm_runtime_put(dev); >+ struct exynos_iommu_owner *owner = master->archdata.iommu; >+ >+ mutex_lock(&owner->rpm_lock); More of a device link question, To understand, i see that with device link + runtime, the supplier callbacks are not called for irqsafe clients, even if supplier is irqsafe. Why so ?
> if (data->domain) { > dev_dbg(data->sysmmu, "saving state\n"); > __sysmmu_disable(data); > } >+ mutex_unlock(&owner->rpm_lock); > } > return 0; > } > >-static int exynos_sysmmu_resume(struct device *dev) >+static int __maybe_unused exynos_sysmmu_resume(struct device *dev) > { > struct sysmmu_drvdata *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > struct device *master = data->master; > > if (master) { >- pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); >+ struct exynos_iommu_owner *owner = master->archdata.iommu; >+ >+ mutex_lock(&owner->rpm_lock); > if (data->domain) { > dev_dbg(data->sysmmu, "restoring state\n"); > __sysmmu_enable(data); > } >+ mutex_unlock(&owner->rpm_lock); > } > return 0; > } >-#endif > > static const struct dev_pm_ops sysmmu_pm_ops = { >- SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(exynos_sysmmu_suspend, exynos_sysmmu_resume) >+ SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(exynos_sysmmu_suspend, exynos_sysmmu_resume, NULL) >+ SET_LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend, >+ pm_runtime_force_resume) > }; Is this needed to be LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS with device links to take care of the order ?
Regards, Sricharan
|  |