lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] PM-runtime: Check supplier_preactivated before release supplier
From
Date

On 6/27/22 10:14 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:07:55PM +0800, peter.wang@mediatek.com wrote:
>> From: Peter Wang <peter.wang@mediatek.com>
>>
>> With divice link of DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME, if consumer call pm_runtime_get_suppliers
>> to prevent supplier enter suspend, pm_runtime_release_supplier should
>> check supplier_preactivated before let supplier enter suspend.
>>
>> If the link is drop or release, bypass check supplier_preactivated.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Wang <peter.wang@mediatek.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/core.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
>> include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 5 +++--
>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
>> index 7cd789c4985d..3b9cc559928f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>> @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static void device_link_release_fn(struct work_struct *work)
>> /* Ensure that all references to the link object have been dropped. */
>> device_link_synchronize_removal();
>>
>> - pm_runtime_release_supplier(link, true);
>> + pm_runtime_release_supplier(link, true, true);
>>
>> put_device(link->consumer);
>> put_device(link->supplier);
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> index 676dc72d912d..3c4f425937a1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> @@ -314,10 +314,19 @@ static int rpm_get_suppliers(struct device *dev)
>> * and if @check_idle is set, check if that device is idle (and so it can be
>> * suspended).
>> */
>> -void pm_runtime_release_supplier(struct device_link *link, bool check_idle)
>> +void pm_runtime_release_supplier(struct device_link *link, bool check_idle,
>> + bool drop)
> This is just making this horrible api even worse. Now there are 2
> boolean flags required, 2 more than really should even be here at all.
> Every time you see this function being used, you will now have to look
> up the definition to see what it really does.
>
> Please make a new function that calls the internal function with the
> flag set properly, so that it is obvious what is happening when the call
> is made.
>
> and really, the same thing should be done for the check_idle flag,
> that's not good either.
>
> thanks,

Hi Gerg,

Good point! you are right, I wont change api next version

Thank you for review


> greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-28 03:51    [W:1.494 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site