Thread (44 messages) 44 messages, 7 authors, 2025-09-13

Re: [PATCH] drvier: usb: dwc3: Fix runtime PM trying to activate child device xxx.dwc3 but parent is not active

From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: 2025-09-04 18:54:26
Also in: linux-pm, lkml

On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 07:34:22PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 4:19 PM Alan Stern [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 04:08:47PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
quoted
quoted
Say this is not the case and say that the device is runtime-suspended
to start with.  Then the "suspend" callback has two choices: either
(1) it can runtime-resume the device before doing anything to it,
which will also cause the device's parent and suppliers to
runtime-resume, or (2) it can update the device's state without
resuming it.

If it chooses (1), then "resume" is straightforward.  If it chooses
(2), "resume" may just reverse the changes made by "suspend" and
declare that the device is runtime-suspended.  And if it really really
wants to resume the device then, why not call runtime_resume() on it?
That's what I meant by needing "cooperation from the driver".  The
driver's ->resume callback needs to do this check to see which pathway
to follow: (1) or (2).
Unless "suspend" always does the same thing, so it always does (1) or
it always does (2).

In that case, "resume" will know what to do without checking.
It still has to check whether the device is runtime suspended.
I'd like to mention that if "suspend" chooses (2), it may need to
resume the suspended parent or suppliers to be able to access the
device even though the device itself won't be resumed.  I'm not sure
if (2) is really attractive then, though.
True.
Also, in the example we've been considering so far, the assumption is
that B can just stay in runtime suspend, so why would it need to be
resumed by "resume"?  And if there is a specific reason for resuming
it, "resume" can just call runtime_resume() on it AFAICS.
So it appears to boil down to this, as far as ->resume is concerned: At 
the start of the callback routine, there should be something like:

	if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) {
		if (the device needs to be woken up) {
			pm_runtime_resume(dev);
			... whatever else is needed ...
		}
		return 0;
	}

If ->suspend is clever, it can clear or set the SMART_SUSPEND flag 
according to whether the device will need to be woken up.  Then the 
second conditional above will always be true whenever the callback runs, 
so the test can be skipped.

Alan Stern
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help