On 07/17/2014 04:54 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:45:03PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> +static int omap_8250_startup(struct uart_port *port)
>> +{
>> + struct uart_8250_port *up =
>> + container_of(port, struct uart_8250_port, port);
>> + struct omap8250_priv *priv = port->private_data;
>> +
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (priv->wakeirq) {
>> + ret = request_irq(priv->wakeirq, omap_wake_irq,
>> + port->irqflags, "wakeup irq", port);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + disable_irq(priv->wakeirq);
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = serial8250_do_startup(port);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto err;
>> +
>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(port->dev);
>
> should this pm_runtime_get_sync() be placed above
> serial8250_do_startup() call ?
I don't think it matters since serial8250_do_startup() has its own
pm_runtime_get_sync().
->startup(), ->shutdown() are called via omap callbacks so we could
spare in the 8250-core if we do it in the omap code before invoking the
function. The same goes for serial8250_set_termios() which is not used
by omap but has those runtime-pm stuff, too.
It would be wrong if someone would use the serial8250_do_startup()
without his own runtime-pm get but it is omap only which does this
things.
So it is not used by anyone else (right now) and if you want to keep it
to a minimum I could remove them from those places.
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
