Hi Shawn, Sorry for the delay. [...] >> >> I think your are in right track, but unfortunate you still have some >> work to do. :-) >> >> You can't call sdhci_suspend_host() with a runtime suspended host. You >> will for example access sdhci internal registers, even-though the >> clock to the SDHCI controller is gated, which is not a good idea. >> >> Now, this leads me to the following questions/ideas, which I am really >> glad we can bring up within this context. >> >> So, sdhci_suspend_host() and sdhci_runtime_suspend_host() performs >> very similar actions, but not completely the same. >> >> I have a feeling that we might be able to merge the above functions >> into one function. The only thing that may differ between system PM >> and runtime PM, is probably the wakeup settings and since that is >> possible to control before the sdhci variant host driver decide to >> call these functions, merging them might work. >> >>> From a wakeup point of view, does your case have different settings >> >> between system PM and runtime PM? >> >> What do you think? > > > My case doesn't have diff settings between system PM and runtime PM. Okay! > If my understanding is proper, I guess you want to remove > sdhci_suspend|resume_host and assign pm_runtime_force_suspend|resume to > SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS directly by sdhci variant HCs? > Yes. You may have a look at the following commit from Ludovic, which is queued for 4.5 on my next branch. That should give you an idea. "mmc: sdhci-of-at91: add PM support" > If that is the case, I guess we should look more precisely into other > sdhci variant HCs to check whether they need to do diff things for system PM > and RPM or not. Yes, please! It would be nice to get that code to actually work. Currently it's mostly broken when runtime PM is enabled. Kind regards Uffe -- 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
