Hi Mathieu,
pm_awake and pm_relax needed to be used as a pair. There is chance that
pm_relax is not being called, and make the device always in cannot
suspend state.
On 9/10/2022 3:23 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
Hi Maria,
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:33:33PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
Even if it is not first crash, need to relax the pm
wakelock otherwise the device will stay awake.
The goal is exactly to keep the device awake...
Signed-off-by: Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
index e5279ed9a8d7..30078043e939 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
@@ -1956,6 +1956,7 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED || rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
/* handle only the first crash detected */
mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
+ pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
If we are here it means that rproc_crash_handler_work() has already been called
_and_ that a recovery is in process. When the first crash handler completes
pm_relax() will be called and the device will go to sleep as expected.
If the rproc->state cannot be changed to running state, the device will
always be awake from this return.
Also APROC_OFFLINE state can be given in other path like an shutdown
request is issued.
While this patch is not considering carefully as well, I think I need to
upload a new patchset with an ordered workqueue to make each work have
each pm_relax before return.
what do you think?
Thanks,
Mathieu
return;
}
--
2.7.4
--
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu
