* Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [230309 13:07]: > * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> [230309 12:23]: > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:57:08AM +0200, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > + err = pm_runtime_get(port_dev); > > > > Is not sync API a deliberate choice? Do we need to comment on why is so? > > I don't think it can be sync version.. See where all __uart_start() may > get called from. The pm_runtime_get() here is needed so the check for > pm_runtime_active() won't be racy. Maybe we can now leave out the > "start TX anyways" part though. To clarify, the reason we no longer need the check for "start TX anyways" is we now do pm_runtime_get() on the new port_dev. Earlier we tried to do it on the physical serial port driver dev where runtime PM possibly was not enabled. Regards, Tony
