Hi Sekhar,
On 11/14/2014 06:03 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> I think I have asked this before, and I am still not sure why this call
> to pm_runtime_get_sync() is needed here. From my testing today, this
> does seem to be a a no-op and this call returns from rpm_resume()
> because of this check:
>
> else if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 && dev->power.is_suspended
> && dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
> retval = 1;
Yes. IIRC, it was in fact not needed.
> So, AFAICS, the net effect is an increment of dev->power.usage_count
> (which is already greater than 0) and its subsequent decrement at the
> end of the function.
>
> After removing this call I did not see any EDMA malfunction as well
> (can access MMC/SD just fine after suspend/resume cycle).
>
> So, any objections to merging this patch with the attached hunk
> applied?
Looks good to me, we can still add it back later if it turns out to be
needed.
Thanks,
Daniel
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
>
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/edma.c b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
> index 1f492d5be9c0..79de6a23047b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/common/edma.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
> @@ -1803,13 +1803,7 @@ static int edma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> static int edma_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
> {
> - int i, j, r;
> -
> - r = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> - if (r < 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "%s: get_sync returned %d\n", __func__, r);
> - return r;
> - }
> + int i, j;
>
> for (j = 0; j < arch_num_cc; j++) {
> struct edma *cc = edma_cc[j];
> @@ -1844,8 +1838,6 @@ static int edma_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
> }
> }
>
> - pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
>
--
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
