On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:16:09AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:34:13AM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> > > > @@ -1169,10 +1167,6 @@ static int sdhci_esdhc_imx_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > > > pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); >> > > > pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); >> > > > >> > > > - clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_per); >> > > > - clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ipg); >> > > > - clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ahb); >> > > >> > > It's obviously a bad change to me. We should definitely have these >> > > clk_disable_unprepare() calls in sdhci_esdhc_imx_remove() to match the >> > > clk_prepare_enable() calls in sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe(). Otherwise, at >> > > least for !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME build, it's broken. >> > > >> > >> > How about add the !CONFIG_RUMTIME_PM precondition for these code to avoid >> > break non runtime pm case? >> > >> > #ifndef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME >> > clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_per); >> > clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ipg); >> > clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ahb); >> > #endif >> >> It's quite ugly. But well, if we do not have anything better, we have >> to live with it. > > To make it look less ugly, we may want to use something like the > following. > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME) > I'm ok with it. Regards Dong Aisheng > Shawn > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
