On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:38:50 +0200
Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Suspend/resume were not working correctly with pm runtime.
Need more info than that!
Anyhow, when you say "not working correctly" what is happening that
is wrong?
Jonathan
> Now suspend check if the chip is already suspended, and
> resume put runtime pm in the correct state.
>
> Fixes: 4599cac84614 ("iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: use runtime pm with autosuspend")
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c
> index e4b0d368c2f9..a58bab03f0b0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c
> @@ -1636,6 +1636,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused inv_mpu_resume(struct device *dev)
> if (result)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> + pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> + pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> + pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +
Looking at the docs, we should do this if we were previously suspended and no longer
are. Not sure we should do it we weren't previously in runtime suspend?
I guess it is idempotent anyway so if we were previously enabled we just set it again.
So probably fine.
Jonathan
> result = inv_mpu6050_switch_engine(st, true, st->suspended_sensors);
> if (result)
> goto out_unlock;
> @@ -1657,13 +1661,18 @@ static int __maybe_unused inv_mpu_suspend(struct device *dev)
>
> mutex_lock(&st->lock);
>
> + st->suspended_sensors = 0;
> + if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) {
> + result = 0;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> if (iio_buffer_enabled(indio_dev)) {
> result = inv_mpu6050_prepare_fifo(st, false);
> if (result)
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> - st->suspended_sensors = 0;
> if (st->chip_config.accl_en)
> st->suspended_sensors |= INV_MPU6050_SENSOR_ACCL;
> if (st->chip_config.gyro_en)
