From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Koul Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] dmaengine: tegra-apb: Really fix runtime-pm usage Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:12:49 +0530 Message-ID: <20170630054249.GO19154@localhost> References: <1496753369-5356-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <20170606144820.GB21217@ulmo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: Thierry Reding , Laxman Dewangan , dmaengine-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:44:58PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > >> static const struct dev_pm_ops tegra_dma_dev_pm_ops = { > >> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(tegra_dma_runtime_suspend, tegra_dma_runtime_resume, > >> NULL) > >> - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(tegra_dma_pm_suspend, tegra_dma_pm_resume) > >> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend, > >> + pm_runtime_force_resume) > > > > Is that even necessary? I thought runtime PM was going to be triggered > > for system sleep anyway, but it looks like there are other examples of > > this usage, so maybe I'm mistaken. > > Yes this is necessary. No RPM is not automatically trigger by system > suspend AFAICT. Yes I was earlier under the same impression but later did realize that the behaviour seems to be arch specific and we don't have guarantee on this -- ~Vinod