On 4/8/19 2:12 AM, Jan Kotas wrote:
On 5 Apr 2019, at 17:04, Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/5/19 2:26 AM, Jan Kotas wrote:
ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
- if (ret < 0)
+ if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
There was a patch submitted on 3/28 by Srinivas Kandagatla who suggested an alternate solution for exactly the same code.
+ if (pm_runtime_enabled(slave->bus->dev)) {
+ ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
I am far from an expert on pm_runtime but Srinivas' solution looks more elegant to me.
Hello Pierre,
Please take a look at this patch, that was my inspiration:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2011-June/031930.html
The two patches seems to be identical:
static inline bool pm_runtime_enabled(struct device *dev)
{
return !dev->power.disable_depth;
}
static int rpm_resume()
[...]
else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0)
retval = -EACCES;
However I am still not clear on why this might fail.
I can only think of one possible explanation: there is no explicit
pm_runtime_enable() in the soundwire code, so maybe the expectation is
that the pm_runtime status is inherited from the parent (in the intel
case the PCI driver), and that's missing in non-intel configurations?
I also took a look, and it seems the value returned by
pm_runtime_get_syncis simply ignored in a lot of places,
so checking its value may be excessive.
But not checking seems careless at best...
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
