Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] dmaengine: pl330: Add PM sleep support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>]

On czw, 2014-11-13 at 10:03 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 02:37, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 03:32:27 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> Add system suspend/resume capabilities to the pl330 driver so the amba
> >> bus clock could be also unprepared to conserve energy.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/dma/pl330.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/dma/pl330.c b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> >> index c3bd3584f261..fd71777fc565 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
> >> @@ -2627,6 +2627,42 @@ static int pl330_dma_device_slave_caps(struct dma_chan *dchan,
> >>       return 0;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Runtime PM callbacks are provided by amba/bus.c driver.
> >> + *
> >> + * It is assumed here that IRQ safe runtime PM is chosen in probe and amba
> >> + * bus driver will only disable/enable the clock in runtime PM callbacks.
> >> + */
> >> +static int __maybe_unused pl330_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct amba_device *pcdev = to_amba_device(dev);
> >> +
> >> +     if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
> >
> > It generally isn't safe to call that in .suspend(), because the status may still
> > change in theory.  On the other hand, if you do that in .suspend_late(), you'll
> > be safe from that.
> >
> 
> Just to clarify that statement; it's safe in a ->suspend_late()
> callback, because runtime PM has been disabled by the PM core.
> 
> That's also the reason why the pm_runtime_force_suspend() helper is
> disabling runtime PM, such it may be used in some of the earlier
> phases of the system PM callbacks.

So actually only pm_runtime_disable() is missing here (as you mentioned
earlier)?

Best regards,
Krzysztof