Hi Grygorii :)
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Grygorii Strashko
<grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 05:34 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/30/2013 03:21 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/edma.c b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>> index 8e1a024..f15cdb9 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +static int edma_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + int j;
>>> +
>>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>>> +
>>
>> error checks?
>>>
>>> + for (j = 0; j < arch_num_cc; j++) {
>>> + struct edma *ecc = edma_cc[j];
>>> +
>>> + disable_irq(ecc->irq_res_start);
>>> + disable_irq(ecc->irq_res_end);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
>
>
> Also, it make no sense to call pm_runtime_putXXX() in suspend handlers
> - it will not work because PM core calls pm_runtime_get_noresume()
> from device_prepare().
>
> Now, for OMAP the edma Device will be finally disabled by OMAP device core
> at suspend_noirq stage (if it's connected to HW_mode).
> But, in other cases it need to be handled somehow :)
>
This PM stuff just gets more interesting ;)
--
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
