+ pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&pci->dev,
ACP_SUSPEND_DELAY_MS);
+ pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&pci->dev);
+ pm_runtime_allow(&pci->dev);
+ pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&pci->dev);
+ pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&pci->dev);
usually there is a pm_runtime_put_noidle() here?
I'm not sure.
[...]
static void snd_rn_acp_remove(struct pci_dev *pci)
{
struct acp_dev_data *adata;
@@ -260,6 +302,9 @@ static void snd_rn_acp_remove(struct pci_dev
*pci)
ret = rn_acp_deinit(adata->acp_base);
if (ret)
dev_err(&pci->dev, "ACP de-init failed\n");
+ pm_runtime_put_noidle(&pci->dev);
+ pm_runtime_get_sync(&pci->dev);
+ pm_runtime_forbid(&pci->dev);
doing a put_noidle() followed by a get_sync() and immediately forbid()
is very odd at best.
Isn't the recommendation to call get_noresume() here?
I'm not sure here either. Is there some definitive documentation on
what exact sequences are supposed to be used in drivers? A quick
browse through drivers that implement runtime pm seems to show a lot
of variation. This sequence works. I'm not sure if it's optimal or
not.
We based our sequence on the comments in drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
/*
* Unbound PCI devices are always put in D0, regardless of
* runtime PM status. During probe, the device is set to
* active and the usage count is incremented. If the driver
* supports runtime PM, it should call pm_runtime_put_noidle(),
* or any other runtime PM helper function decrementing the usage
* count, in its probe routine and pm_runtime_get_noresume() in
* its remove routine.
*/
If I understood correctly, below should be the correct sequence rite ?
acp pci driver probe sequence:
pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&pci->dev, ACP_SUSPEND_DELAY_MS);
pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&pci->dev);
pm_runtime_put_noidle(&pci->dev);
pm_runtime_allow(&pci->dev);
sounds about right. We added an extra pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() to
make sure the information is updated, but that's probably on the
paranoid side.
acp pci driver remove sequence:
pm_runtime_get_noresume(&pci->dev);
pm_runtime_disable(&pci->dev);
I have still have a doubt.
Do we need to call pm_runtime_disable() explicitly in this case ?
we don't call pm_runtime_disable().
