From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [Letux-kernel] [PATCH v2] musb: omap2430: do not assume balanced enable()/disable() Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:25:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20160811182506.GN28140@atomide.com> References: <1470238731-32358-1-git-send-email-andreas@kemnade.info> <20160804142919.GG28140@atomide.com> <20160804183129.2e0cac71@aktux> <20160804184402.73963e8a@aktux> <20160805135501.GJ28140@atomide.com> <20160805172039.6dac0aeb@aktux> <20160806062134.GK28140@atomide.com> <20160809073559.287d0a59@aktux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160809073559.287d0a59@aktux> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Kemnade Cc: Discussions about the Letux Kernel , Linux USB Mailing List , LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-omap , Bin Liu List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Andreas Kemnade [160808 22:36]: > Calls to musb_platform_enable() occur at only 1 place. > musb_platform_disable() is called at 4 places. > > about balancing: > There is musb_start() and musb_stop(). They are called from > musb_gadget_start/stop() > These call musb_platform_enable() and musb_platform_disable(). > Looks ok. > > There is musb_suspend() and musb_resume(): > > musb_suspend() calls musb_platform_disable() > musb_resume() calls musb_plaform_enable() via musb_start() > looks balanced but why don't we use musb_stop() in musb_suspend()? Hmm let's try adding musb_stop() to musb_suspend() too. > Now the odd things: > musb_platform_disable() in musb_remove() called upon module removal > musb_platform_disable() in musb_init_controller() called from > musb_probe() > > This looks clearly unbalanced. Sure would be nice to get those balanced. I think the only reason why musb_platform_disable() is called is to disable interrupts. Care to post a patch and let's see what happens? I can now easily test the PM with musb. Regards, TOny