On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:44:15PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti wrote: > On Monday 23 April 2012 10:19 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> [ 154.901153] Exception stack(0xdf9b9fb0 to 0xdf9b9ff8) > >> > [ 154.907104] 9fa0: beaf1f04 4006be00 0000000f 0000000c > >> > [ 154.915710] 9fc0: 4006c000 00000000 00008034 ffffff40 00000007 00000000 00000000 0007b8d7 > >> > [ 154.916778] 9fe0: 00000000 beaf1b68 0000d23c 4005baf0 80000010 ffffffff > >> > [ 154.931335] r6:ffffffff r5:80000010 r4:4005baf0 r3:beaf1f04 > >> > [ 154.937316] ---[ end trace 1b75b31a2719ed21 ]-- > >> > > >> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti D <shubhrajyoti@xxxxxx> > > Is this really the correct solution? I do wonder that every driver using > > runtime PM should enable the clocks on their own. That should be done by > > the core, > By core you don't mean the i2c core but the pm layer right? Yes. > > I'd say; it is not unusual that drivers need to write to > > registers in remove(). If it is correct, can I get some acks? > I did see the crash. That was never a doubt. With "correct" I meant "correct solution". > Will wait for the pm experts to comment. Yup. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
