Hi, On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 04:40:56PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote: > Hi Guido, > > On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 13:40 +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > The phy's configure phase usually needs register access so taking the > > device out of pm_runtime suspend looks useful. > > > > There's currently two in tree drivers using runtime pm and .configure > > (qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c, rockchip/phy-rockchip-inno-dsidphy.c) but both > > don't use the phy layers 'transparent' runtime phy_pm_runtime handling > > but manage it manually so this will for now only affect the > > phy-fsl-imx8-mipi-dphy driver. > > IIUC, the qualcomm one's runtime PM is managed by the phy core when > users enable it using power/control in sysfs(see comment just before > pm_runtime_forbid() in that driver). > I'm assuming it's affected and it would be good to test it.
Ah, right. I'll reword the commit message but i don't have any means to test it. > I'm not pretty sure if the rockchip one is affected or not, because I'm > assuming the power/control nodes of phy->dev and phy->parent.dev in > sysfs are both 'auto' after the driver probes. Testing if adding runtime pm for .configure to phy_core breaks anything here would be great too. I've added Dmitry and Heiko to cc: since they were active in those drivers lately and i sure don't want to break these. > > > > Signed-off-by: Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> > > --- > > drivers/phy/phy-core.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c > > index ccb575b13777..256a964d52d3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c > > +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c > > @@ -470,10 +470,16 @@ int phy_configure(struct phy *phy, union > > phy_configure_opts *opts) > > if (!phy->ops->configure) > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > + ret = phy_pm_runtime_get_sync(phy); > > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENOTSUPP) > > + return ret; > > + ret = 0; /* Override possible ret == -ENOTSUPP */ > > This override is not needed, because 'ret' will be the return value of > phy->ops->configure() right below. I thought being explicit is better here but i'll drop that for the next rev. Thanks! -- Guido > > Regards, > Liu Ying > > > + > > mutex_lock(&phy->mutex); > > ret = phy->ops->configure(phy, opts); > > mutex_unlock(&phy->mutex); > > > > + phy_pm_runtime_put(phy); > > return ret; > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phy_configure); >
