[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 0/7] Functional dependencies between devices
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:18:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 07:57:31 PM Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > To name a different use case: On hybrid graphics laptops, the discrete
> > GPU usually includes an HDA controller for external HDMI displays.
> > The GPU and the HDA controllers are siblings (functions 0 and 1 of a
> > PCI slot), yet in many laptops power is cut to both devices when _PS3
> > is executed for the GPU function. Currently we have a kludge where
> > the HDA controller is suspended before the GPU is powered down
> > (see vga_switcheroo_init_domain_pm_optimus_hdmi_audio()).
> >
> > I envision the HDA controller to be a consumer of the GPU in those
> > cases, thus ensuring that it's suspended before power is cut.
> So this example isn't a good one IMO. That clearly is a case when two
> (or more) devices share power resources controlled by a single on/off
> switch. Which is a clear use case for a PM domain.

TBH, I've never understood how a PM domain is supposed to solve this.
When power is cut at runtime for a struct dev_pm_domain, all devices
that were assigned this PM domain with dev_pm_domain_set() need to be
runtime suspended. This requires that a list of devices is maintained
which were assigned the same PM domain, and that the PM domain's
->runtime_suspend hook isn't executed before all of these devices have
runtime_suspended. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any code
to guarantee that in drivers/base/power/. Rather, the PM domain's
->runtime_suspend hook is executed as soon as one of the devices in the
PM domain runtime suspends, *without* taking into consideration the
other devices in the PM domain. They'll just be hanging in the air
with their device powered down.

From what I've seen, people simply use struct dev_pm_domain as a way to
override the bus callbacks. At least that's what Dave Airlie does in
vga_switcheroo. But fundamentally that has nothing to do with shared
power resources, it only has to do with enforcing a different behaviour
than the bus.

Thus I don't understand what you mean if you say this is a use case for
a PM domain.

> > I'm sure there are situations where a driver presence dependency
> > is needed between parent/child and you should fully expect that
> > developers will try to employ device links for these use cases.
> > Which means that the code for suspend/resume device ordering is
> > executed twice.
> Creating a link between a parent and child would be a bug. I guess
> device_link_add() should just return NULL on an attempt to do that.

To be clear, while linking a parent (as consumer) to a child
(as supplier) needs to be prevented since it introduces a dependency
loop, the converse should IMO be allowed.

That would be the case when someone needs a driver presence dependency,
but doesn't need a suspend/resume ordering dependency (because it's
already guaranteed by the PM core for parent/child). In that case the
child will simultaneously be a consumer, which means e.g. that dpm_wait()
will be executed twice for the same device, but that overhead is probably



 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-18 14:39    [W:0.095 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site