From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:17:06 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] clockevents: don't suspend/resume if unused
In-Reply-To: <20150116092014.GA27945@gradator.net>
References: <1421399151-26800-1-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
 <20150116092014.GA27945@gradator.net>
Message-ID: <20150116111706.GE12302@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:20:14AM +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> Hello Alexandre,
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:05:51AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > There is no point in calling suspend/resume for unused
> > clockevents as they are already stopped and disabled.
> > 
> > Furthermore, it can take some time to wait for some IPs to stop counting.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
> > Reported-by: Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@finsecur.com>
> 
> Indeed, this is way better from what I did.
> 
> 
> > +		if (dev->suspend && dev->mode != CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED)
> 
> I wonder if we should use > CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN
> (or CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED || CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN) instead of 
> !CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED.

Definitely - consider the effect of the original patch set on a clock
source which is being used, has PM support, but does not have an
->enable callback.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.