Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
And also a note in the changelog (or comment at the WARN) about the
assumption that runtime PM is disabled at this point.
Kevin
--
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
