Messages in this thread |  | | From | Kevin Hilman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: maintain sane runtime pm status around suspend/resume | Date | Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:45:12 -0800 |
| |
Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
> On 11/13/2013 06:51 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:08:30PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c >>> index b69dd9a..f97b34b 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c >>> @@ -621,6 +621,7 @@ static int _od_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> >>> if (!ret && !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) { >>> if (pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev) == 0) { >>> + pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev); >> >> don't you have to disable pm_runtime around status changes ? Or is >> pm_runtime already disabled by the time we get here ? > > pm_runtime is already disabled by the time no_irq suspend is invoked. > >> >>> @@ -634,10 +635,10 @@ static int _od_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev); >>> struct omap_device *od = to_omap_device(pdev); >>> >>> - if ((od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) && >>> - !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) { >>> + if (od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) { >>> od->flags &= ~OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED; >>> omap_device_enable(pdev); >>> + pm_runtime_set_active(dev); >> >> ditto, also pm_runtime_set_active() may fail. >> > again, pm_runtime is not yet active here yet - we just restore the pm > runtime state with which we went down with -> and that is not expected > to fail either - So, how about just adding a WARN if our expectation > of balanced operation was somehow broken in the future with changes to > runtime framework?
And also a note in the changelog (or comment at the WARN) about the assumption that runtime PM is disabled at this point.
Kevin
|  |