Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] PM: Reconcile different driver options for runtime PM integration with system sleep

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:31 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 21:25, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > This series addresses a couple of issues related to the integration of runtime
> > PM with system sleep I was talking about at the OSMP-summit 2025:
> >
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/1021332/
> >
> > Most importantly, DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND cannot be used along with
> > pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() due to some conflicting expectations
> > about the handling of device runtime PM status between these functions
> > and the PM core.
> >
> > Also pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() currently cannot be used in PCI
> > drivers and in drivers that collaborate with the general ACPI PM domain
> > because they both don't expect their mid-layer runtime PM callbacks to
> > be invoked during system-wide suspend and resume.
> >
> > Patch [1/9] is a preparatory cleanup changing the code to use 'true' and
> > 'false' as needs_force_resume flag values for consistency.
> >
> > Patch [2/9] makes pm_runtime_force_suspend() check needs_force_resume along
> > with the device's runtime PM status upfront, and bail out if it is set,
> > which allows runtime PM status updates to be eliminated from both that function
> > and pm_runtime_force_resume().
> >
> > Patch [3/9] causes the smart_suspend flag to be taken into account by
> > pm_runtime_force_resume() which allows it to resume devices with smart_suspend
> > set whose runtime PM status has been changed to RPM_ACTIVE by the PM core at
> > the beginning of system resume.  After this patch, drivers that use
> > pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() can also set DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND which
> > may be useful, for example, if devices handled by them are involved in
> > dependency chains with other devices setting DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND.
> >
> > The next two patches, [4-5/9], put pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume()
> > and needs_force_resume under CONFIG_PM_SLEEP for consistency and also
> > because using them outside system-wide PM transitions really doesn't make
> > sense.
> >
> > Patch [6/9] makes the code for getting a runtime PM callback for a device
> > a bit more straightforward in preparation for the subsequent changes.
>
> I can't find this one. Seems like you did not submit it.
>
> Perhaps make a resend and fixup the patch-numbering too?

I'm going to send a v2, but the patch in question is here (wrong number):

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/3306233.5fSG56mABF@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/