Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] PM / Domains: Support atomic PM domains

[Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>]

On Thu, Jun 11 2015 at 18:13 -0600, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>On 11.06.2015 01:13, Lina Iyer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 07 2015 at 03:21 -0600, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> W dniu 05.06.2015 o 07:29, Lina Iyer pisze:

...

>>>> @@ -1266,11 +1338,18 @@ int __pm_genpd_add_device(struct
>>>> generic_pm_domain *genpd, struct device *dev,
>>>>      if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd) || IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev))
>>>>          return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> +    /* Devices in an IRQ safe PM Domain have to be irq safe too */
>>>
>>> Why? Can you add this information here? Previously there was a reason in
>>> case of irq_safe devices which you removed leaving only policy.
>>>
>> Sorry, your question is not clear to me.
>> I believe this is a new requirement that enforces the contained devices
>> of an irq-safe domain to be irq-safe as well.
>
>What I wanted to say is that it would be nice if comment explained why
>domain have to be IRQ safe too. Without this "WHY" answer the comment is
>quite redundant - the "if" statement is obvious. But the "WHY" is not
>such obvious.
>
>Previous comments in few places mentioned the answer:
>/*
> * We can't allow to power off the PM domain if it holds an irq_safe
> * device. That's beacuse we use mutexes to protect data while power
> * off and on the PM domain, thus we can't execute in atomic context.
> */
>
Oh, yes. Will fix it.

Thanks,
Lina