* Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [160808 22:36]: > Calls to musb_platform_enable() occur at only 1 place. > musb_platform_disable() is called at 4 places. > > about balancing: > There is musb_start() and musb_stop(). They are called from > musb_gadget_start/stop() > These call musb_platform_enable() and musb_platform_disable(). > Looks ok. > > There is musb_suspend() and musb_resume(): > > musb_suspend() calls musb_platform_disable() > musb_resume() calls musb_plaform_enable() via musb_start() > looks balanced but why don't we use musb_stop() in musb_suspend()? Hmm let's try adding musb_stop() to musb_suspend() too. > Now the odd things: > musb_platform_disable() in musb_remove() called upon module removal > musb_platform_disable() in musb_init_controller() called from > musb_probe() > > This looks clearly unbalanced. Sure would be nice to get those balanced. I think the only reason why musb_platform_disable() is called is to disable interrupts. Care to post a patch and let's see what happens? I can now easily test the PM with musb. Regards, TOny -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
