> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:48 AM > To: Kevin Hilman > Cc: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Alan > Stern; Ming Lei > Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PM: runtime PM + idle: allow usage when > interrupts are disabled > > On Tuesday, August 10, 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > When using runtime PM in combination with CPUidle, the runtime PM > > transtions of some devices may be triggered during the idle path. > > Late in the idle sequence, interrupts will likely be disabled when > > runtime PM for these devices is initiated. > > > > Currently, the runtime PM core assumes methods are called with > > interrupts enabled. However, if it is called with interrupts > > disabled, the internal locking unconditionally enables interrupts, for > > example: > > > > pm_runtime_put_sync() > > Please don't use that from interrupt context. There's pm_runtime_put() > exactly for this purpose that puts the _idle() call into a workqueue. Rafael, we execute this little before executing idle instruction with interrupts locked. So, we cannot call pm_runtime_put() as we want it to take effect immediately. Kevin?? > > > __pm_runtime_put() > > pm_runtime_idle() > > spin_lock_irq() > > __pm_runtime_idle() > > spin_unlock_irq() <--- interrupts unconditionally > enabled > > That's because __pm_runtime_idle() has to be called from process context. > > > dev->bus->pm->runtime_idle() > > spin_lock_irq() > > spin_unlock_irq() > > Thanks, > Rafael > -- > 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 -- 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
