From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: maintain sane runtime pm status around suspend/resume Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:45:12 -0800 Message-ID: <87vbzwl307.fsf@linaro.org> References: <1384297710-29694-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20131113125149.GB28192@saruman.home> <52839306.7050701@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:38029 "EHLO mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756218Ab3KMPpP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:45:15 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hz1so594533pad.31 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:45:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52839306.7050701@ti.com> (Nishanth Menon's message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:56:06 -0600") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon Cc: balbi@ti.com, Tony Lindgren , paul@pwsan.com, rnayak@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nishanth Menon writes: > On 11/13/2013 06:51 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:08:30PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c >>> index b69dd9a..f97b34b 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c >>> @@ -621,6 +621,7 @@ static int _od_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> >>> if (!ret && !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) { >>> if (pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev) == 0) { >>> + pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev); >> >> don't you have to disable pm_runtime around status changes ? Or is >> pm_runtime already disabled by the time we get here ? > > pm_runtime is already disabled by the time no_irq suspend is invoked. > >> >>> @@ -634,10 +635,10 @@ static int _od_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev); >>> struct omap_device *od = to_omap_device(pdev); >>> >>> - if ((od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) && >>> - !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) { >>> + if (od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) { >>> od->flags &= ~OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED; >>> omap_device_enable(pdev); >>> + pm_runtime_set_active(dev); >> >> ditto, also pm_runtime_set_active() may fail. >> > again, pm_runtime is not yet active here yet - we just restore the pm > runtime state with which we went down with -> and that is not expected > to fail either - So, how about just adding a WARN if our expectation > of balanced operation was somehow broken in the future with changes to > runtime framework? And also a note in the changelog (or comment at the WARN) about the assumption that runtime PM is disabled at this point. Kevin