On 11/13/2013 06:51 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:08:30PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
>> index b69dd9a..f97b34b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
>> @@ -621,6 +621,7 @@ static int _od_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev)
>>
>> if (!ret && !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
>> if (pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev) == 0) {
>> + pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
>
> don't you have to disable pm_runtime around status changes ? Or is
> pm_runtime already disabled by the time we get here ?
pm_runtime is already disabled by the time no_irq suspend is invoked.
>
>> @@ -634,10 +635,10 @@ static int _od_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
>> struct omap_device *od = to_omap_device(pdev);
>>
>> - if ((od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) &&
>> - !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
>> + if (od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) {
>> od->flags &= ~OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED;
>> omap_device_enable(pdev);
>> + pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
>
> ditto, also pm_runtime_set_active() may fail.
>
again, pm_runtime is not yet active here yet - we just restore the pm
runtime state with which we went down with -> and that is not expected
to fail either - So, how about just adding a WARN if our expectation
of balanced operation was somehow broken in the future with changes to
runtime framework?
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
