From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Make sure the device is suspended before disabling runtime PM Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:24:32 +0300 Message-ID: <20150617102432.GI1478@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <1434532118-119906-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20150617101645.GA1517@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150617101645.GA1517@katana> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Christian Ruppert , jarkko.nikula-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:16:45PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:08:38PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > The driver calls pm_runtime_put() right before pm_runtime_disable() in its > > ->remove() hook to make sure clock is gated etc. However, it turns out that > > pm_runtime_put() only calls ->idle() hook without actually suspending > > anything. The following pm_runtime_disable() will prevent the driver from > > suspending thus leaving it "active". > > > > It is better to suspend the device synchronously to make sure it is > > actually suspended before disabling runtime PM from it. > > > > While there, undo call to pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg > > For current? For next? stable? > Right, sorry about that. I think it is fine to get this for next.