Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] iio: hid-sensors: use asynchronous resume

[Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2016-08-15 at 10:14 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
> <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2016-08-15 at 08:45 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.o
> > > rg>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 15/08/16 15:07, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 07/08/16 11:15, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Sun, 7 Aug 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Some platforms power off sensor hubs during S3 suspend,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > will require
> > > > > > > longer time to resume. This hurts system resume time, so
> > > > > > > resume
> > > > > > > asynchronously.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@l
> > > > > > > inux
> > > > > > > .intel.com>
> > > > > > Jonathan, are you going to cherry-pick this patch from the
> > > > > > series?
> > > > > > Alternatively, if you're okay with it, I can pull it in
> > > > > > together with the
> > > > > > whole set with your Acked-by or Reviewed-by.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > I'll take it via IIO. Got a bit of catching up to do (been on
> > > > > holiday)
> > > > Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git - initially pushed out
> > > > as
> > > > testing for the autobuilders to play with it.
> > > > This one is not really connected to the others so makes sense
> > > > to
> > > > take it separately.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm out of my depth on the rest of the patches in this series
> > > > and don't have time to learn enough to follow them! Sorry I
> > > > can't help on that front.
> > > About this patch: me sees a new work, me does not see new calls
> > > to
> > > cancel_work_sync() or flush_work() anywhere, me gets worried.
> > This work is scheduled during resume and is not delayed call. Only
> > time
> > really we need to cancel or flush if module is unloaded before
> > resume
> > work, not sure if this case realistic. Do you see any other case
> > possible?
> Runtime resume can happen at any time, I can unload module or unbind
> it at any time. I also wasn't aware that our implementation goal for
> locking rules/lifetime rules/etc was "realistic" instead of
> "correct".
This is not for runtime_resume, this is for regular S3 suspend. But I
agree, I will submit a patch for correctness.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> 
> Thanks.
>