[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/rockchip: Handle errors returned from PM framework
Am Dienstag, 7. August 2018, 14:31:49 CEST schrieb Marc Zyngier:
> On 07/08/18 13:09, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > Am Dienstag, 7. August 2018, 10:54:05 CEST schrieb Marc Zyngier:
> >> pm_runtime_get_if_in_use can fail: either PM has been disabled
> >> altogether (-EINVAL), or the device hasn't been enabled yet (0).
> >> Sadly, the Rockchip IOMMU driver tends to conflate the two things
> >> by considering a non-zero return value as successful.
> >>
> >> This has the consequence of hiding other bugs, so let's handle this
> >> case throughout the driver, with a WARN_ON_ONCE so that we can try
> >> and work out what happened.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 0f181d3cf7d98 ("iommu/rockchip: Add runtime PM support")
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <>
> >
> > I'm still not sure about the !CONFIG_PM case, as it was probably silently
> > working in that case before
> Do we agree that this is an orthogonal problem though?

Nope ;-) .... I.e. right now the code ignores the -EINVAL from disabled PM
and continues, possibly even handling the irq correctly.

If it actually worked is a different matter, as I guess nobody really tried
with !PM in the past.

Now with error-handling we always return IRQ_NONE for !PM.

> > But on the other hand we're also already running over it in other places
> > like in the iommu-shutdown and I guess if someone _really_ disabled
> > CONFIG_PM, a lot of additional stuff would fail anyway.
> >
> > So should we wrap that in some #ifdef magic, just ignore it or simply
> > select PM similar to what Tegra, Renesas and Vexpress seem to do?
> >
> > I guess I like the 3rd option best ;-)
> It probably doesn't hurt. At what level do you want it? As a dependency
> to the IOMMU? or to the platform?

I guess it might be best to go the Tegra, etc way. Whoever in their right
mind would want to drive a mobile platform without any form for power
management ;-) .

I can do these patches for arm32+arm64 myself ... I just wanted to put
that thought out there - in case that was just a stupid idea of mine :-D .


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-07 15:16    [W:0.050 / U:2.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site