On 2024/9/6 12:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 07:02, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2024/9/6 11:52, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 06:51, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2024/9/6 11:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 06:41, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2024/9/6 11:36, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 06:31, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2024/9/6 11:15, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:13:45AM GMT, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> It's important to undo pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() with >>>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() at driver exit time unless driver >>>>>>>>>> initially enabled pm_runtime with devm_pm_runtime_enable() >>>>>>>>>> (which handles it for you). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hence, call pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() at driver exit time >>>>>>>>>> to fix it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fixes: cfdab2cd85ec ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Set an autosuspend delay of 250 ms") >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> v2: >>>>>>>>>> - Fix it directly instead of use devm_pm_runtime_enable(). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The devm* sequence will have some problem, which will not consistent >>>>>>>> with the former. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Link: >>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAD=FV=VyDk-e2KNiuiBcACFAdrQmihOH6X6BSpGB+T1MsgsiKw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That comment was for devm_request_irq(), not devm_pm_runtime_enable(). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the very least, ** parch #2 needs to come before this one and that >>>>>> would help, but it won't fix everything **. Specifically in order to >>>>>> keep the order proper you'll need to use devm_add_action_or_reset() to >>>>>> "devm-ize" the freeing of the DMA channels. >>>>> >>>>> This is patch #2. so I don't understand your comment. Moreover you >>>>> don't have to use devm for each and every possible item. However I >>>>> think it makes sense for pm_runtime in this case. >>>> >>>> You are right, only use devm_pm_runtime_enable() here, there is no >>>> change for the resource release sequence, but I have a cleanup patch >>>> ready to replace all these with devm*, which depends on the 2 fix patch. >>> >>> You can use the devm_pm_runtime_enable() here and land the rest of the >>> cleanups afterwards. >> >> But Doug suggest that the bug fix patch should not contain "-next", but >> the cleanup patch is "-next", which let me split them 🤣 > > Using devm_pm_runtime_enable() is a bugfix too, if done properly. Thank you! I'll fix it with devm_pm_runtime_enable() in v3 in the first patch according to your suggestion. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c | 2 ++ >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c >>>>>>>>>> index fc2819effe2d..38857edbc785 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1158,6 +1158,7 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>>>>>> spi_geni_release_dma: >>>>>>>>>> spi_geni_release_dma_chan(mas); >>>>>>>>>> spi_geni_probe_runtime_disable: >>>>>>>>>> + pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(dev); >>>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_disable(dev); >>>>>>>>>> return ret; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1174,6 +1175,7 @@ static void spi_geni_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> spi_geni_release_dma_chan(mas); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> + pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); >>>>>>>>>> pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 2.34.1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > > >