On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 14:47 +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > On 29.5.2020 7.29, Macpaul Lin wrote: > > When runtime suspend was enabled, runtime suspend might happened > > when xhci is removing hcd. This might cause kernel panic when hcd > > has been freed but runtime pm suspend related handle need to > > reference it. > > > > Change-Id: I70a5dc8006207caeecbac6955ce8e5345dcc70e6 > > Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk.c | 5 +++-- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk.c > > index bfbdb3c..641d24e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk.c > > @@ -587,6 +587,9 @@ static int xhci_mtk_remove(struct platform_device *dev) > > struct xhci_hcd *xhci = hcd_to_xhci(hcd); > > struct usb_hcd *shared_hcd = xhci->shared_hcd; > > > > + pm_runtime_put_sync(&dev->dev); > > Might runtime suspend here. > It's a lot better than before, no panic as hcd isn't released, but a bit unnecessary. > > how about this sequence instead: > pm_runtime_disable() > pm_runtime_put_noidle() > > > + pm_runtime_disable(&dev->dev); > > + > > -Mathias Thanks for your suggestion! Will it better to put no idle before disable? pm_runtime_put_noidle() pm_runtime_disable() I've found pm_runtime_put_noidle is called in pm_runtime_disable() when there is a pending request. I will send patch v3 as noidle() called earlier than disable(). Please help to comment it if disable() should go before. Thanks! Macpaul Lin
