Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / Wakeirq: Add minimal device wakeirq helper functions

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> [150309 08:42]:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Considering the above, should we add a new function something like
> > > > > > pm_resume_complete() that does not need irq_safe set but does
> > > > > > not return until the device has completed resume?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That doesn't make sense.  You're asking for a routine that is allowed
> > > > > to sleep but can safely be called in interrupt context.
> > > > 
> > > > Oh it naturally would not work in irq context, it's for the bottom
> > > > half again.
> > > 
> > > In other words, you're suggesting we add a function that runs in 
> > > process context and doesn't return until the device is fully resumed?  
> > > That's exactly what pm_runtime_resume does right now.
> > 
> > But doesn't it only wait for completion if the driver is marked with
> > pm_runtime_irq_safe()?
> 
> Put it this way: pm_runtime_resume invokes a ->runtime_resume
> callback routine (the subsystem's or the driver's or whichever), and it
> assumes that if the routine returns 0 then the device has been resumed.  
> It doesn't really _wait_ for anything; it just calls the callback
> routine.
> 
> It behaves this way whether or not the irq_safe flag is set.  The only
> difference is that if irq_safe is set then the callback routine is
> invoked with interrupts disabled (and in this case pm_runtime_resume
> may be called in interrupt context -- normally it can be called only in
> process context).

Oh right you are. Looking at rpm_resume() again, it's the RPM_ASYNC that
was causing problems to me earlier, not the irq_safe. Sorry it seems I
was a bit confused. And yes, pm_runtime_resume() does not set RPM_ASYNC
like you pointed out earlier so no need to do anything there.

Regards,

Tony