On 2024-05-08 14:33:24 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 12:58:31PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > On 2024-05-08 02:55:44 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > +static int rtsn_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > >
> > >
> > > > + pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> > > > + pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
> > >
> > >
> > > > +static int rtsn_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct rtsn_private *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > +
> > > > + unregister_netdev(priv->ndev);
> > > > + rtsn_mdio_free(priv);
> > > > + rcar_gen4_ptp_unregister(priv->ptp_priv);
> > > > + rtsn_change_mode(priv, OCR_OPC_DISABLE);
> > > > + netif_napi_del(&priv->napi);
> > > > +
> > > > + pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
> > > > + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> > >
> > > These appear to be the only two places you do any pm_ stuff. So it
> > > seems pointless. Maybe delete this for the moment, and come back later
> > > to add proper runtime power management?
> >
> > I agree enable more PM stuff is a good candidate to follow initial
> > entablement. But these pm_ calls are not pointless, I still need to deal
> > with power. If I remove the pm_ calls things starts to fail.
>
> That is odd. Why does it fail? What is turning the power off? Did i
> miss you registering some callbacks?
I agree it's odd and I will try to find out.
If I remove all pm_ calls and the include of pm_runtime.h register reads
from the device do no longer works, so operating the device fails. Even
if I dig out the root cause for this, is there any harm in keeping the
pm_ operations in the initial entablement?
>
> Andrew
--
Kind Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
