From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:06:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: mach-shmobile: sh7372 A4R suspend/resume order fix Message-Id: <201111101006.07436.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, November 10, 2011, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, November 09, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > >> I took the liberty to reimplement the original fix by Magnus in a > > >> different way. I didn't quite like the idea of rewriting platform data, > > >> which could and, probably, should actually be const, on each > > >> domain-suspend. Instead, checking in resume, whether a valid state > > >> snapshot is available seemed a bit prettier to me:-) The maintainer is, of > > >> course, free to choose whichever version he prefers, they both > > >> > > >> "Fix issue in v3.2-rc1 on the sh7372 Mackerel board." > > > > > > Magnus, Paul, which one do you want me to take? > > > > I prefer leaving the INTCS code as-is - unaware of calling order and > > putting the workaround in the Runtime PM code. In the end the ordering > > issue is related to Runtime PM and not INTCS. If someone knows a > > better way to fix the Runtime PM code then I'd be happy to accept > > that. But I don't like putting the workaround in INTCS. > > > Agreed. While I don't much care for the approach taken by this patch > either, keeping it insular at the framework level until the need for it > can be resolved in the runtime PM code seems like a reasonable stop-gap. > I would rather not paper over this in the platform code since it'll > invariably lead to more instances that need to be audited and cleaned up > later on, in addition to being more error prone. OK, thanks!