On Friday 14 November 2014 10:37 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > 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. Okay, thanks for the confirmation. Regards, Sekhar -- 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
