On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 04:29:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 16:24, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I see - this could be fixed by having the interrupt handler bounce the > > clock on, there's a little overhead from that but hopefully not too > > much. That should also help with the remove case I guess so long as the > > clock is registered before the interrupt is requested? > Doesn't this mean that we risk leaving the clock enabled during suspend? If we suspend with the interrupt handler running but IIRC the suspend sequence will allow interrupt handlers to complete. > Is there any function in the SPI core that quiesces any pending > transactions, and then stops the controller? I would have expected > spi_controller_suspend to do that, but I'm not sure (it doesn't look > like it). spi_stop_queue() should do this (but will time out if the queue is too busy). It doesn't stop new transactions being issued, I'm guessing because that'll most likely cause more problems than it solves but that code predates my involvement.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
