[Freedreno] [PATCH v16 2/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device

[Vivek Gautam]

Hi Robin, Will,

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:41 AM Vivek Gautam
<vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:52 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:22 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:38 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tomasz,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/7/2018 2:46 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > > Hi Vivek,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:46 PM Vivek Gautam
> > > > > <vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > > > >> From: Sricharan R <sricharan at codeaurora.org>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks
> > > > >> gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without
> > > > >> the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those places
> > > > >> separately.
> > > > >> Global locks are also initialized before enabling runtime pm as the
> > > > >> runtime_resume() calls device_reset() which does tlb_sync_global()
> > > > >> that ultimately requires locks to be initialized.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan at codeaurora.org>
> > > > >> [vivek: Cleanup pm runtime calls]
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org>
> > > > >> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga at chromium.org>
> > > > >> Tested-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >>   drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > >>   1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >> @@ -2215,10 +2281,17 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > >>          if (!bitmap_empty(smmu->context_map, ARM_SMMU_MAX_CBS))
> > > > >>                  dev_err(&pdev->dev, "removing device with active domains!\n");
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +       arm_smmu_rpm_get(smmu);
> > > > >>          /* Turn the thing off */
> > > > >>          writel(sCR0_CLIENTPD, ARM_SMMU_GR0_NS(smmu) + ARM_SMMU_GR0_sCR0);
> > > > >> +       arm_smmu_rpm_put(smmu);
> > > > >> +
> > > > >> +       if (pm_runtime_enabled(smmu->dev))
> > > > >> +               pm_runtime_force_suspend(smmu->dev);
> > > > >> +       else
> > > > >> +               clk_bulk_disable(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -       clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
> > > > >> +       clk_bulk_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
> > > > > Aren't we missing pm_runtime_disable() here? We'll have the enable
> > > > > count unbalanced if the driver is removed and probed again.
> > > >
> > > > pm_runtime_force_suspend() does a pm_runtime_disable() also if i am not
> > > > wrong.
> > > > And, as mentioned in a previous thread [1], we were seeing a warning
> > > > which we avoided
> > > > by keeping force_suspend().
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/8/124
> > >
> > > I see, thanks. I didn't realize that pm_runtime_force_suspend()
> > > already disables runtime PM indeed. Sorry for the noise.
> >
> > Hi Tomasz,
> > No problem. Thanks for looking back at it.
> >
> > Hi Robin,
> > If you are fine with this series, then can you please consider giving
> > Reviewed-by, so that we are certain that this series will go in the next merge
> > window.
> > Thanks
>
> Gentle ping.
> You ack will be very helpful in letting Will pull this series for 4.20.
> Thanks.

I would really appreciate if you could provide your ack for this series.
Or if there are any concerns, I am willing to address them.
Thanks.

Best regards
Vivek



>
> --
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation



--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation