On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:56:06AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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?
you mean:
WARN(pm_runtime_set_active(dev)); ?
sounds good
thanks
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
