On Tuesday 24 April 2012 11:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > 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. As far as I know I don’t think that the pm layer doesn't enable the clocks for the drivers on remove. Maybe Kevin or Rajendra can comment better. -- 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
