On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 30 December 2017 at 01:47, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> In case the WAKEUP_PATH flag has been set in a later phase than from the >>> ->suspend() callback, the PM core don't set the ->power.wakeup_path status >>> flag for the device. Therefore, let's be safe and check it explicitly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/base/power/domain.c | 8 ++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c >>> index f9dcc98..32b4ba7 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c >>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c >>> @@ -1038,7 +1038,9 @@ static int genpd_finish_suspend(struct device *dev, bool poweroff) >>> if (IS_ERR(genpd)) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> - if (dev->power.wakeup_path && genpd_is_active_wakeup(genpd)) >>> + if ((dev->power.wakeup_path || >>> + dev_pm_test_driver_flags(dev, DPM_FLAG_WAKEUP_PATH)) && >> >> Shouldn't dev->power.wakeup_path be always set if DPM_FLAG_WAKEUP_PATH >> is set as per the second patch in the series? > > Not if DPM_FLAG_WAKEUP_PATH is set from a driver's ->suspend_late() callback. > > To do that, the PM core would need to be adopted to set/propagate the > "wakeup_path" flag at __device_suspend_late(), similar to what is done > at __device_suspend(). Why not? The wakeup_path flag is only used during the "noirq" phase, so it can be propagated to parent at the end of __device_suspend_late() instead of doing that in __device_suspend() even. Thanks, Rafael
