From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
<nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
<linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
<patches@opensource.cirrus.com>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
<imx@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-media@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-phy@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-sound@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>,
<linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
<greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org>, <asahi@lists.linux.dev>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/51] treewide: Switch to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend()
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:48:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41a0ad69-912b-4eb3-84f7-fb385433c056@opensource.cirrus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jvJyS7D5-wURi2kyWN-rmNa+YqupeQJ000pQRVd9VBcQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/10/2024 7:24 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 12:35 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 00:25, Laurent Pinchart
>> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ulf,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 12:08:24AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 20:49, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 04:38:36PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 11:41, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This set will switch the users of pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() to
>>>>>>> __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() while the former will soon be re-purposed
>>>>>>> to include a call to pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). The two are almost
>>>>>>> always used together, apart from bugs which are likely common. Going
>>>>>>> forward, most new users should be using pm_runtime_put_autosuspend().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once this conversion is done and pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() re-purposed,
>>>>>>> I'll post another set to merge the calls to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend()
>>>>>>> and pm_runtime_mark_last_busy().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like it could cause a lot of churns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not add a new helper function that does the
>>>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() and the pm_runtime_mark_last_busy()
>>>>>> things? Then we can start moving users over to this new interface,
>>>>>> rather than having this intermediate step?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the API would be nicer if we used the shortest and simplest
>>>>> function names for the most common use cases. Following
>>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() with pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() is that
>>>>> most common use case. That's why I like Sakari's approach of repurposing
>>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(), and introducing
>>>>> __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() for the odd cases where
>>>>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() shouldn't be called.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, so the reason for this approach is because we couldn't find a
>>>> short and descriptive name that could be used in favor of
>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). Let me throw some ideas at it and maybe
>>>> you like it - or not. :-)
>>>
>>> I like the idea at least :-)
>>>
>>>> I don't know what options you guys discussed, but to me the entire
>>>> "autosuspend"-suffix isn't really that necessary in my opinion. There
>>>> are more ways than calling pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() that triggers
>>>> us to use the RPM_AUTO flag for rpm_suspend(). For example, just
>>>> calling pm_runtime_put() has the similar effect.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I'm lost there. pm_runtime_put() calls
>>> __pm_runtime_idle(RPM_GET_PUT | RPM_ASYNC), while
>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() calls __pm_runtime_suspend(RPM_GET_PUT |
>>> RPM_ASYNC | RPM_AUTO).
>>
>> __pm_runtime_idle() ends up calling rpm_idle(), which may call
>> rpm_suspend() - if it succeeds to idle the device. In that case, it
>> tags on the RPM_AUTO flag in the call to rpm_suspend(). Quite similar
>> to what is happening when calling pm_runtime_put_autosuspend().
>
> Right.
>
> For almost everybody, except for a small bunch of drivers that
> actually have a .runtime_idle() callback, pm_runtime_put() is
> literally equivalent to pm_runtime_put_autosuspend().
>
> So really the question is why anyone who doesn't provide a
> .runtime_idle() callback bothers with using this special
> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() thing,
Because they are following the documentation? It says:
"Drivers should call pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() to update this field
after carrying out I/O, typically just before calling
pm_runtime_put_autosuspend()."
and
"In order to use autosuspend, subsystems or drivers must call
pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() (...), and thereafter they should use the
various `*_autosuspend()` helper functions instead of the non#
autosuspend counterparts"
So the documentation says I should be using pm_runtime_put_autosuspend()
instead of pm_runtime_put().
Seems unfair to criticise people for following the documentation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-09 13:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-04 9:41 [PATCH 00/51] treewide: Switch to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() Sakari Ailus
2024-10-04 9:41 ` [PATCH 38/51] remoteproc: omap: " Sakari Ailus
2024-10-04 14:38 ` [PATCH 00/51] treewide: " Ulf Hansson
2024-10-07 18:49 ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-10-07 22:08 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-10-07 22:25 ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-10-07 22:34 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-10-08 18:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-10-09 10:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-10-09 10:27 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-10-09 12:48 ` Richard Fitzgerald [this message]
2024-10-09 13:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-10-08 20:38 ` Uwe Kleine-König
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41a0ad69-912b-4eb3-84f7-fb385433c056@opensource.cirrus.com \
--to=rf@opensource.cirrus.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=asahi@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=imx@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sound@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=patches@opensource.cirrus.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).