On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:20:21PM +0530, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> @@ -913,12 +598,15 @@ static int usbhs_enable(struct device *dev)
>> >> (pdata->ehci_data->reset_gpio_port[1], 1);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> -end_count:
>> >> - omap->count++;
>> >> + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
>> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&omap->lock, flags);
>> >
>> > Is pm_runtime_irq_safe() needed (else I think runtime PM callbacks may
>> > re-enable IRQs... or there's the new *_suspend runtime PM calls that
>> > may avoid this)?
>>
>> pm_runtime_irq_safe() is not required; usbhs does not have a parent
>> and it is the parent driver of
>> ehci and ohci drivers.
>
> But the above expects IRQs to be disabled during the
> pm_runtime_put_sync, and synchronous calls can turn IRQs back on in
> rpm_idle:
>
> if (callback) {
> spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>
> callback(dev);
>
> I see other folks who know this better than me are discussing USB run
> time PM and might_sleep contexts, so I'll note this concern and let
> others chime in if they think there's a real problem here.
Thanks, I think I should protect the critical section of call backs here.
>
>
> Todd
>
--
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
