From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:07:03 +0100 Subject: [RFT/PATCH] serial: omap: prevent resume if device is not suspended. In-Reply-To: <20120925103652.GN9137@arwen.pp.htv.fi> References: <1347972050-3509-1-git-send-email-sourav.poddar@ti.com> <20120925083029.GG31374@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120925083118.GI9137@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <20120925091228.GI31374@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120925091112.GK9137@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <20120925092118.GJ31374@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120925094815.GL9137@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <20120925102958.GL31374@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120925103652.GN9137@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Message-ID: <20120925110703.GN31374@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:37:03PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:29:58AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Because you are accusing me of potentially breaking your beagleboard > > for merely suggesting further investigation and a better commit message. > > Where did I accuse you of anyting ? I just mentioned we experienced a > regression with beagleboard XM when using pm_runtime_set_active(). I quote: :> But should we cause a regression to beagleboard XM because of that ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I say again: I was _only_ suggesting further investigation, yet you were mouthing off about causing a regression to beagleboard "because of that", effectively saying that no, we should not do any further investigation and this is the only fix. > To add extra info, here you go: Finally, something constructive. > We pinged Paul and asked if he had seen that before, he had no > pointers... Because Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt was using a > mystruct->is_suspended flag, we just decided to follow the same > "design" since no-one was able to suggest why pm_runtime_set_active() > was breaking beagleXM nor how it was supposed to actually work. > > Reading the code: pm_runtime_set_active() would tell pm_runtime core > the device is actually active by setting runtime_status to RPM_ACTIVE, > thus the following pm_runtime_get_sync() wouldn't actually call > runtime_resume() callback, but it would increment usage_counter. > > I can't see why this would fail on beagleXM, but it does and we'd like > to hear in which situations this could fail... Well, I've just spent five minutes analysing the code paths - which I hadn't looked at before - and I've pointed out what's probably causing the problem for Beagle. I think you owe me an appology over your aggressive attitude towards my suggestions that there needed to be some further investigation.