From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] PM / QoS: Fix device resume latency for non PM QoS devices Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:39:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20171124203940.GA12811@mithrandir> References: <1511538800-8275-1-git-send-email-mmaddireddy@nvidia.com> <1511538800-8275-4-git-send-email-mmaddireddy@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Manikanta Maddireddy , Jon Hunter , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , vidyas-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, kthota-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux PCI , Linux PM List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 05:50:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Manikanta Maddireddy > wrote: > > In 'commit 0cc2b4e5a020 ("PM / QoS: Fix device resume latency PM QoS")' > > PM QoS resume latency modified 0 as "no latency at all". However > > dev_pm_qos_raw_read_value() returns 0 for devices which doesn't have > > PM QoS constraints. This is blocking runtime suspend for these devices > > in rpm_check_suspend_allowed(). Return PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRA= INT > > when PM QoS constraints are not available for a particular device. > > > > Fixes: 0cc2b4e5a020 ("PM / QoS: Fix device resume latency PM QoS") >=20 > That commit has been reverted, so this patch is not applicable and > therefore the whole series isn't. >=20 > What kernel is it based off? It looks like this might have crept in via commit 0759e80b84e3 ("PM / QoS: Fix device resume latency framework"). But checking more closely, that commit actually incorporates this change already. According to the git log the correct commit for this showed up in linux-next only today, which is probably why Manikanta missed it. Manikanta: can you try rebasing your series on top of next-20171124? git should notice that this particular change is already part of that and drop it during the rebase. Thierry --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAloYg4UACgkQ3SOs138+ s6EkZxAAmGjFyXPByhGc3KiydAMFKOwvSnuMWz+ADFnA/0MCDXuPoRdHfFLeZ6c6 mqWL5+E7J9rQ5mQ1dhSotqplowXGST0ayquEqc/ECfsDVLbKBpSDKp7Z1Q80EG/d +R2sKfDcZm9yOPVfQ6PDzRCcirkY60IEYUA/+aLcwZHa7Syt+e63rkTc3omFd0Yw vT1/N7KmcBgCNKEJotHn4uE6Q8dGMg0dD2Rq5AQ4La0kVdQ4T964st6SfVFfQgYS OdQpwpKiarxmRfn8+h6jfjNnTvgpJf/ni3ebxACSemqYjA1enviZmR5srioFy1UX BgSIn2BqdcdioR1wm7HOkfqgt+5s6a9MqhLz2lDeaF1MoHCsOsF93xkTIMxWb0df weduGaQDAFOzBXmdK2nK6wg1UXUDQ6JhiJ6VbLbWpgT9S4AYPkxrV1RIDIu0Ckmz 0U0pWAx/G3xKAbWLjRkeC34JaBcAU80Rz9ZcLs9RrRX3XOZcGeQS3dGTvvC1SY+T iwgu4W2z+d+RQzgWySh9IGbNS3HQtw8LF0IHRMxx64k2Ka97KdhtGFKRnaSzTc1s VET2Q9HFwqxVC7TIzuOinIp0NS9FJH6U/AbByJx44Vk+uF/m6E9u9VWCr2sU8/nH uw9av12TpCjLWL+O/4r8SW7EcPN6bLHszlBbS8bw5qJ+h9iKLs0= =voue -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html