> >> @@ -474,20 +478,28 @@ static int intel_dg_mtd_erase(struct mtd_info > *mtd, struct erase_info *info) > >> total_len = info->len; > >> addr = info->addr; > >> > >> + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(mtd->dev.parent); > > on this, I really don't believe this is right and we should use > > the parent child relation ship in our favor and only have the mtd > > device to handle their own runtime pm... > I concur with Rodrigo. If the parent-child relationship is preserved, > the parent will resume before the child, eliminating the need to > explicitly wake the parent. > Please refer to https://docs.kernel.org/driver-api/pm/devices.html > > The ordering of the device hierarchy is defined by the order in which > devices get registered: > "a child can never be registered, probed or > resumed before its parent; " > and can’t be removed or suspended after that parent. > > If so, I have to add patch for mtd subsystem to always have device for master initialized regardless of kernel flag. Only to initialize struct device, not to create full mtd node. Miquel - are you agree to this? - - Thanks, Sasha
