From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA2D22425B; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:01:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769529718; cv=none; b=NRorQ/hHOSHv2F+ywqXdtMWv+xKv55g6SjpUhg4iJuO2HRcSlAKMUwYEWjdTrL17zXsNznaAQ14dR8rS1OJ9UTF19diQReP+Cn6GY8FK8JyF5sKXX/bYXXNHcCt9qWG8rH+TXB8fZCmj+w7RCepA+sJT98Gq8VOHRNUzL6Pr8xU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769529718; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hNYWK9LXZ5vvecy7a9W+Vn+YofGNDK3NnbrGCkkzoas=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VfmMu/jjiuDfWcLRzSVM+w6ELtVX6+3g60dJz5wD/7rAi8uHKGeyvw7eNGKipZQnU8zvE32h9dXrvXr6JSzPKuCfRM/BP67/RdBM9XQt7jaRQ/lQUnQKwCQiyL/RmvkokX5uTXYoK9yCcruK3z0uV8bd/65npVqp/G4p3PpUoNU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=WqWl/Bhc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="WqWl/Bhc" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1769529717; x=1801065717; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=hNYWK9LXZ5vvecy7a9W+Vn+YofGNDK3NnbrGCkkzoas=; b=WqWl/BhczMVRfh57XZPS97PEuQkATb0qCrnPfmm2UOniPisbsmicVQCC 2ZBmi6ckIXmmA1v8uNKF0Dxke30QONDHQPHHm77VWn1GwjwexFUN5T865 rrZJEnUj23ztSnxXJAfA8nV+v7lMTDj/JohZ0HeyEzaAhPu9E3tHXOBj+ Ei9F1mglueaqnhMwZlOgGHFVoWTFDXkySwsn12wWmn3XTAsEMGUuKmwT1 2Rbct60W7IxCS9az/lgaQyugZI6tOa6Lb9eou32bffa1c4Iyu7JcxIRgC 3der6btIWeGB+CZmXmXOXtGKOyJlylCtfVy0aPrQ8JkZGbMGmxkbcV7t4 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 483UKY3ZQnq3O87yTxL9ww== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 2cA3N/mnQKeTaJ/Jz/ZAzQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11684"; a="88306626" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,257,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="88306626" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jan 2026 08:01:56 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ECun5qIlSDS9aOsQ2PDy2g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: KwRyYQfmTYyVmLnES9mlxw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,257,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="207909829" Received: from black.igk.intel.com ([10.91.253.5]) by fmviesa006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2026 08:01:55 -0800 Received: by black.igk.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1003) id B2B1598; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:01:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:01:54 +0100 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Mark Brown Cc: Jisheng Zhang , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: dw-mmio: support suspend/resume Message-ID: References: <20260122155046.12848-1-jszhang@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-spi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 05:57:42PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 11:50:46PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: ... > > + clk_disable_unprepare(dwsmmio->pclk); > > + clk_disable_unprepare(dwsmmio->clk); > > These were allocated using devm_clk_get_prepare_enable() so we shouldn't > really be fiddling with the state at runtime. In practice this should > always be fine I think but it's not really something we're supposed to > be doing, in theory we could fail to resume and then end up doing a > double disable on removal. Probably the open coded version would have > the same issue though so perhaps this is pedantic... We clearly can call clk_disable(), but I'm not sure unprepare is the stage that has no side-effects here. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko