[PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/

linux-i2c.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync
@ 2015-12-10 11:48 Jarkko Nikula
  2015-12-10 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Jarkko Nikula
  2015-12-12 17:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync Wolfram Sang
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Nikula @ 2015-12-10 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-i2c
  Cc: Wolfram Sang, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, David Box,
	Jarkko Nikula

On an hardware shared I2C bus (certain Intel Baytrail SoC platforms) the
runtime PM disable depth keeps increasing over repeated modprobe/rmmod
cycle because pm_runtime_disable() is called without checking should it
be disabled already because of bus sharing.

This hasn't made any other harm than dev->power.disable_depth keeps
increasing but keep it sync by calling pm_runtime_disable() only when
runtime PM is not disabled.

Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
index 809579ecb5a4..1308666b054b 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
@@ -240,12 +240,10 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	}
 
 	r = i2c_dw_probe(dev);
-	if (r) {
+	if (r && !dev->pm_runtime_disabled)
 		pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
-		return r;
-	}
 
-	return 0;
+	return r;
 }
 
 static int dw_i2c_plat_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
@@ -260,7 +258,8 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
 	pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
-	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
+	if (!dev->pm_runtime_disabled)
+		pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.6.2

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2015-12-10 11:48 [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync Jarkko Nikula
@ 2015-12-10 11:48 ` Jarkko Nikula
  2015-12-10 12:59   ` Andy Shevchenko
                     ` (3 more replies)
  2015-12-12 17:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync Wolfram Sang
  1 sibling, 4 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Nikula @ 2015-12-10 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-i2c
  Cc: Wolfram Sang, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, David Box,
	Jarkko Nikula

I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency that
Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to be
able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW semaphore.

Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required only
when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.

Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
---
Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with this
HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a module.
At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
@@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
 
 config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
 	bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
-	depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
+	depends on ACPI
+	depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
+		   (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
 	help
 	  This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C bus on select
 	  Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC. It allows
-- 
2.6.2

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2015-12-10 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Jarkko Nikula
@ 2015-12-10 12:59   ` Andy Shevchenko
  2015-12-10 13:56     ` Jarkko Nikula
  2016-01-05 22:21   ` David E. Box
                     ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2015-12-10 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Nikula, linux-i2c; +Cc: Wolfram Sang, Mika Westerberg, David Box

On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency
> that
> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to
> be
> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW
> semaphore.
> 
> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required
> only
> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with
> this
> HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a
> module.


> At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
>  
>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
>  	bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> -	depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> +	depends on ACPI
> +	depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> +		   (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)

Would it be more readable in the following way

depends on ACPI
depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m
depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y

>  	help
>  	  This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C
> bus on select
>  	  Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC.
> It allows

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2015-12-10 12:59   ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2015-12-10 13:56     ` Jarkko Nikula
  2016-01-04 19:51       ` Wolfram Sang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Nikula @ 2015-12-10 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andy Shevchenko, linux-i2c; +Cc: Wolfram Sang, Mika Westerberg, David Box

On 12/10/2015 02:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
>> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency
>> that
>> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to
>> be
>> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW
>> semaphore.
>>
>> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required
>> only
>> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with
>> this
>> HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a
>> module.
>
>
>> At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
>> acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
>> i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
>> ---
>>   drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
>> index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
>> @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
>>
>>   config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
>>   	bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
>> -	depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
>> +	depends on ACPI
>> +	depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
>> +		   (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
>
> Would it be more readable in the following way
>
> depends on ACPI
> depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
> depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m
> depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y
>
For my eyes it looks a bit more complex but I think it's matter of 
taste. However, the syntax you are proposing is not supported for 
"depends on" like it is for "select" statements.

-- 
Jarkko

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2015-12-10 13:56     ` Jarkko Nikula
@ 2016-01-04 19:51       ` Wolfram Sang
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2016-01-04 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Nikula; +Cc: Andy Shevchenko, linux-i2c, Mika Westerberg, David Box

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2073 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:56:27PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 12/10/2015 02:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> >>I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency
> >>that
> >>Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to
> >>be
> >>able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW
> >>semaphore.
> >>
> >>Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required
> >>only
> >>when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> >>---
> >>Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with
> >>this
> >>HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a
> >>module.
> >
> >
> >>At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> >>acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> >>i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> >>---
> >>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> >>index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> >>+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> >>@@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
> >>
> >>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
> >>  	bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> >>-	depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> >>+	depends on ACPI
> >>+	depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> >>+		   (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
> >
> >Would it be more readable in the following way
> >
> >depends on ACPI
> >depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
> >depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m
> >depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y
> >
> For my eyes it looks a bit more complex but I think it's matter of taste.
> However, the syntax you are proposing is not supported for "depends on" like
> it is for "select" statements.

Any news? David?


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2015-12-10 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Jarkko Nikula
  2015-12-10 12:59   ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2016-01-05 22:21   ` David E. Box
  2016-04-12 21:27     ` Wolfram Sang
  2016-04-12 21:46   ` David E. Box
  2016-06-19 17:31   ` Wolfram Sang
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: David E. Box @ 2016-01-05 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Nikula; +Cc: linux-i2c, Wolfram Sang, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg

Hi

Sorry I missed this discussion. I believe the following code in
i2c_dw_eval_lock_support() should make it so that it doesn't matter how
IOSF_MBI is built:

   if (!iosf_mbi_available())
           return -EPROBE_DEFER;

I added this to address i2c_designware probing before iosf_mbi. It worked but
I do not recall if IOSF_MBI=m was the problem scenario. If so you can just
change it to:

   depends in I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI
    
Give me a few days to confirm on my Baytrail device. 

David

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:48:44PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency that
> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to be
> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW semaphore.
> 
> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required only
> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with this
> HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a module.
> At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
>  
>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
>  	bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> -	depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> +	depends on ACPI
> +	depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> +		   (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
>  	help
>  	  This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C bus on select
>  	  Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC. It allows
> -- 
> 2.6.2
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2016-01-05 22:21   ` David E. Box
@ 2016-04-12 21:27     ` Wolfram Sang
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2016-04-12 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David E. Box; +Cc: Jarkko Nikula, linux-i2c, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 642 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 02:21:00PM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Sorry I missed this discussion. I believe the following code in
> i2c_dw_eval_lock_support() should make it so that it doesn't matter how
> IOSF_MBI is built:
> 
>    if (!iosf_mbi_available())
>            return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> 
> I added this to address i2c_designware probing before iosf_mbi. It worked but
> I do not recall if IOSF_MBI=m was the problem scenario. If so you can just
> change it to:
> 
>    depends in I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI
>     
> Give me a few days to confirm on my Baytrail device. 

What is the status here?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2015-12-10 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Jarkko Nikula
  2015-12-10 12:59   ` Andy Shevchenko
  2016-01-05 22:21   ` David E. Box
@ 2016-04-12 21:46   ` David E. Box
  2016-06-19 17:31   ` Wolfram Sang
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: David E. Box @ 2016-04-12 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Nikula; +Cc: linux-i2c, Wolfram Sang, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:48:44PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency that
> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to be
> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW semaphore.
> 
> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required only
> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with this
> HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a module.
> At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
>  
>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
>  	bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> -	depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> +	depends on ACPI
> +	depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> +		   (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
>  	help
>  	  This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C bus on select
>  	  Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC. It allows
> -- 
> 2.6.2
> 
Acked-by: David Box <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m
  2015-12-10 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Jarkko Nikula
                     ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2016-04-12 21:46   ` David E. Box
@ 2016-06-19 17:31   ` Wolfram Sang
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2016-06-19 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Nikula; +Cc: linux-i2c, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, David Box

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:48:44PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency that
> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to be
> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW semaphore.
> 
> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required only
> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>

Finally applied to for-next, thanks!


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync
  2015-12-10 11:48 [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync Jarkko Nikula
  2015-12-10 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Jarkko Nikula
@ 2015-12-12 17:06 ` Wolfram Sang
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2015-12-12 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Nikula; +Cc: linux-i2c, Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, David Box

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 620 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:48:43PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On an hardware shared I2C bus (certain Intel Baytrail SoC platforms) the
> runtime PM disable depth keeps increasing over repeated modprobe/rmmod
> cycle because pm_runtime_disable() is called without checking should it
> be disabled already because of bus sharing.
> 
> This hasn't made any other harm than dev->power.disable_depth keeps
> increasing but keep it sync by calling pm_runtime_disable() only when
> runtime PM is not disabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>

Applied to for-current, thanks!


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-19 17:31 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-12-10 11:48 [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync Jarkko Nikula
2015-12-10 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Jarkko Nikula
2015-12-10 12:59   ` Andy Shevchenko
2015-12-10 13:56     ` Jarkko Nikula
2016-01-04 19:51       ` Wolfram Sang
2016-01-05 22:21   ` David E. Box
2016-04-12 21:27     ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-12 21:46   ` David E. Box
2016-06-19 17:31   ` Wolfram Sang
2015-12-12 17:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] i2c: designware: Keep pm_runtime_enable/_disable calls in sync Wolfram Sang

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).