On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 08:06:47AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Mika, > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Mika Westerberg > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:12:36AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > >> Thanks for testing! Can you do a "dump_stack()" here? I'm curious > > >> why it's deciding to runtime resume. Maybe something changed between > > >> 3.14 and ToT? > > > > > > Here you go: > > > > > > [ 26.711737] i2c_hid i2c-ATML1000:00: PM: i2c-hid runtime resume > > > [ 26.711754] CPU: 3 PID: 123 Comm: sh Not tainted 4.0.0-rc3+ #6 > > > [ 26.711775] ffff88007604c600 ffff88007ba77ae8 ffffffff8183966e 0000000080000000 > > > [ 26.711791] ffff88017a83a020 ffff88007ba77b08 ffffffff816a0759 ffff88017a83a020 > > > [ 26.711804] ffff88017a83a0ce ffff88007ba77b18 ffffffff814ba3ee ffff88007ba77b38 > > > [ 26.711807] Call Trace: > > > [ 26.711835] [<ffffffff8183966e>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b > > > [ 26.711852] [<ffffffff816a0759>] i2c_hid_runtime_resume+0x29/0x50 > > > [ 26.711866] [<ffffffff814ba3ee>] pm_generic_runtime_resume+0x2e/0x40 > > > [ 26.711880] [<ffffffff81412b15>] acpi_subsys_runtime_resume+0x1f/0x23 > > > [ 26.711892] [<ffffffff814bbeb6>] __rpm_callback+0x36/0x90 > > > [ 26.711902] [<ffffffff814bbf36>] rpm_callback+0x26/0xa0 > > > [ 26.711914] [<ffffffff814bd286>] rpm_resume+0x496/0x670 > > > [ 26.711928] [<ffffffff814bd4a0>] __pm_runtime_resume+0x40/0x60 > > > [ 26.711940] [<ffffffff81412500>] ? acpi_subsys_complete+0x1e/0x1e > > > [ 26.711951] [<ffffffff81412515>] acpi_subsys_suspend+0x15/0x21 > > > > > > It's the ACPI power domain that runtime resumes the device before it > > > suspends it for system sleep. > > > > OK, that explains the difference in behavior for me. I'm on an ARM > > board that has no ACPI, so there's no ACPI layer to runtime resume the > > device. > > That's interesting. So you have an ARM device with i2c-hid compatible > device connected to it? Out of curiousity, do you use DT or some > platform board file to configure the thing? > > > At least it sounds like you confirmed that my patch doesn't break your > > use case, which is good. > > I actually didn't have your patch applied yet. I just wanted to verify > that the existing code works. > > Let me know and I'll run the same test with your patch applied. I did try with the patch applied and suspend/resume worked just fine. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
