Hello,

On Friday 12 December 2014 13:15:51 Tomasz Figa wrote:

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 04:51:37 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:

quoted

On 11 December 2014 at 16:31, Kevin Hilman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[+ Laurent Pinchart]

Tomasz Figa [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -988,11 +1107,28 @@ static int rk_iommu_probe(struct

platform_device *pdev)>> >>>> 
                return -ENXIO;
        
        }

+       pm_runtime_no_callbacks(dev);
+       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
+
+       /* Synchronize state of the domain with driver data. */
+       pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
+       iommu->is_powered = true;

Doesn't the runtime PM status reflect the value of "is_powered", thus
why do you need to have a copy of it? Could it perpahps be that you
try to cope with the case when CONFIG_PM is unset?

It's worth noting that this driver fully relies on status of other
devices in the power domain the IOMMU is in and does not enforce the
status on its own. So in general, as far as my understanding of PM
runtime subsystem, the status of the IOMMU device will be always
suspended, because nobody will call pm_runtime_get() on it (except the
get and put pair in probe). So is_powered is here to track status of
the domain, not the device. Feel free to suggest a better way, though.

I still don't like these notifiers.  I think they add ways to bypass
having proper runtime PM implemented for devices/subsystems.

I do agree, but I haven't found another good solution to the problem.

For the record, I'm not liking this mostly because it "fixes" a generic
problem in a way that's hidden in the genpd code and very indirect.

Well, that's true. This is indeed a generic problem of PM dependencies
between devices (other than those represented by parent-child
relation), which in fact doesn't have much to do with genpd, but
rather with those devices directly. It is just that genpd is the most
convenient location to solve this in current code and in a simple way.
In other words, I see this solution as a reasonable way to get the
problem solved quickly for now, so that we can start thinking about a
more elegant solution.

quoted

quoted

quoted

From a high-level, the IOMMU is just another device inside the PM
domain, so ideally it should be doing it's own _get() and _put() calls
so the PM domain code would just do the right thing without the need
for notifiers.

As I understand it, the IOMMU (or for other similar cases) shouldn't
be doing any get() and put() at all because there are no IO API to
serve request from.

Speaking purely from an IOMMU point of view that's not entirely tree. IOMMU 
drivers expose map and unmap operations, so they can track whether any memory 
is mapped. From a bus master point of view the IOMMU map and unmap operations 
are hidden by the DMA mapping API. The IOMMU can thus track the existence of 
mappings without any IOMMU awareness in the bus master driver.

If no mapping exist the IOMMU shouldn't receive any translation request. An 
IOMMU driver could thus call pm_runtime_get_sync() in the map handler when 
creating the first mapping, and pm_runtime_put() in the unmap handler when 
tearing the last mapping down.

One could argue that the IOMMU would end up being powered more often than 
strictly needed, as bus masters drivers, even when written properly, could 
keep mappings around at times they don't perform bus access. This is true, and 
that's an argument I've raised during the last kernel summit. The general 
response (including Linus Torvald's) was that micro-optimizing power 
management might not be worth it, and that measurements proving that the gain 
is worth it are required before introducing new APIs to solve the problem. I 
can't disagree with that argument.

quoted

quoted

In principle we could consider these kind devices as "parent" devices
to those other devices that needs them. Then runtime PM core would
take care of things for us, right!?

Now, I am not so sure using the "parent" approach is actually viable,
since it will likely have other complications, but I haven't
thoroughly thought it though yet.

That actually need not be a "parent".

What's needed in this case is to do a pm_runtime_get_sync() on a device
depended on every time a dependent device is runtime-resumed (and
analogously for suspending).

The core doesn't have a way to do that, but it looks like we'll need to
add it anyway for various reasons (ACPI _DEP is one of them as I mentioned
some time ago, but people dismissed it basically as not their problem).

Let me show you our exact use case.

We have a power domain, which contains an IOMMU and an IP block, which
can do bus transactions through that IOMMU. Of course the IP block is
not aware of the IOMMU, because this is just an integration detail and
on other platforms using the same IP block the IOMMU might not be
there. This implies that the driver for this IP block should not be
aware of the IOMMU either, which, on the buffer allocation and mapping
side, is achieved by DMA mapping subsystem. We would also want the
IOMMU to be fully transparent to that driver on PM side.

Now, for PM related details, they are located in the same power
domain, which means that whenever the power domain is turned off, the
CPU can't access their registers and all the hardware state is gone.
To make the case more interesting, there is no point in programming
the IOMMU unless the device using it is powered on. Similarly, there
is no point in powering the domain on to just access the IOMMU. This
implies that the power domain should be fully controlled by the
stand-alone IP block, while the peripheral IOMMU shouldn't affect its
state and its driver only respond to operations performed by driver of
that stand-alone IP block.

A solution like below could work for the above:

- There is a per-device list of peripheral devices, which need to be
powered on for this device to work.
- Whenever the IOMMU subsystem/driver binds an IOMMU to a device, it
adds the IOMMU device to the list of peripheral devices of that device
(and similarly for removal).
- A runtime PM operation on a device will also perform the same
operation on all its peripheral devices.

Another way would be to extend what the PM runtime core does with
parent-child relations to handle the whole list of peripheral devices
instead of just the parent.

Would this design sound somehow reasonable to you?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart