On Thu, Aug 28, 2025, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 12:43:17AM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 4:52 PM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ryan:
> > > >
> > > > You should present your questions to the maintainer of the kernel's
> > > > Power Management subsystem, Rafael Wysocki (added to the To: list for
> > > > this email).
> > >
> > > Thanks Alan!
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 10:09:10PM +0800, ryan zhou wrote:
> > > > > Hi Roy,
> > > > > Thank you for reviewing my patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wouldn't the parent glue dev already resume before resuming the child dwc3?
> > > > > >
> > > > > No, in the following case, the parent device will not be reviewed
> > > > > before resuming the child device.
> > > > > Taking the 'imx8mp-dwc3' driver as an example.
> > > > > Step 1.usb disconnect trigger: the child device dwc3 enter runtime
> > > > > suspend state firstly, followed by
> > > > > the parent device imx8mp-dwc3 enters runtime suspend
> > > > > flow:dwc3_runtime_suspend->dwc3_imx8mp_runtime_suspend
> > > > > Step2.system deep trigger:consistent with the runtime suspend flow,
> > > > > child enters pm suspend and followed
> > > > > by parent
> > > > > flow: dwc3_pm_suspend->dwc3_imx8mp_pm_suspend
> > > > > Step3: After dwc3_pm_suspend, and before dwc3_imx8mp_pm_suspend, a
> > > > > task terminated the system suspend process
> > > > > . The system will resume from the checkpoint, and resume devices in
> > > > > the suspended state in the reverse
> > > > > of pm suspend, but excluding the parent device imx8mp-dwc3 since it
> > > > > did not execute the suspend process.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Why would 'runtime PM trying to activate child device xxx.dwc3 but parent is not active' happen in the first place?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Following the above analysis, dwc3_resume calls
> > >
> > > I assume that dwc3_pm_resume() is meant here.
> > >
> > > > > pm_runtime_set_active(dev), it checks the
> > > > > parent.power->runtime_status is not RPM_ACTIVE and outputs the error log.
> > >
> > > And it does so because enabling runtime PM for the child with
> > > runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE does not make sense when the parent has
> > > runtime PM enabled and its status is not RPM_ACTIVE.
> > >
> > > It looks like the runtime PM status of the parent is not as expected,
> >
> > So is the scenario Ryan brought up unexpected? What are we missing here
> > and where should the fix be in?
> >
> > > but quite frankly I don't quite follow the logic in dwc3_pm_resume().
> > >
> > > Why does it disable runtime PM just for the duration of
> > > dwc3_resume_common()? If runtime PM is functional before the
> > > pm_runtime_disable() call in dwc3_pm_resume(), the device may as well
> > > be resumed by calling pm_runtime_resume() on it without disabling
> > > runtime PM. In turn, if runtime PM is not functional at that point,
> > > it should not be enabled.
> >
> > Base on git-blame, I hope this will answer your question:
> >
> > 68c26fe58182 ("usb: dwc3: set pm runtime active before resume common")
> >
> > For device mode, if PM runtime autosuspend feature enabled, the
> > runtime power status of dwc3 may be suspended when run dwc3_resume(),
> > and dwc3 gadget would not be configured in dwc3_gadget_run_stop().
> > It would cause gadget connected failed if USB cable has been plugged
> > before PM resume. So move forward pm_runtime_set_active() to fix it.
> >
> >
> > In certain platforms, they probably need the phy to be active to perform
> > dwc3_resume_common().
>
> It sounds like the real question is how we should deal with an
> interrupted system suspend. Suppose parent device A and child device B
> are both in runtime suspend when a system sleep transition begins. The
> PM core invokes the ->suspend callback of B (and let's say the callback
> doesn't need to do anything because B is already suspended with the
> appropriate wakeup setting).
>
> But then before the PM core invokes the ->suspend callback of A, the
> system sleep transition is cancelled. So the PM core goes through the
> device tree from parents to children, invoking the ->resume callback for
> all the devices whose ->suspend callback was called earlier. Thus, A's
> ->resume is skipped because A's ->suspend wasn't called, but B's
> ->resume callback _is_ invoked. This callback fails, because it can't
> resume B while A is still in runtime suspend.
>
> The same problem arises if A isn't a parent of B but there is a PM
> dependency from B to A.
>
> It's been so long since I worked on the system suspend code that I don't
> remember how we decided to handle this scenario.
>
Alan, Rafael,
What are your thoughts on how we should handle this. Should the fix be
at the PM core? Sounds like the PM core needs to check more than whether
the ->suspend callback was called earlier to determine whether to skip
->resume.
Thanks,
Thinh
