Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dmaengine: tegra210-adma: update system sleep callbacks | From | Sameer Pujar <> | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:26:01 +0530 |
| |
On 3/13/2019 4:19 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 13/03/2019 10:40, Sameer Pujar wrote: >> On 3/13/2019 3:58 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> On 13/03/2019 05:43, Sameer Pujar wrote: >>>> If the driver is active till late suspend, where runtime PM cannot run, >>>> force suspend is essential in such case to put the device in low power >>>> state. Thus pm_runtime_force_suspend and pm_runtime_force_resume are >>>> used as system sleep callbacks during system wide PM transitions. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c | 10 ++-------- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c b/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c >>>> index 650cd9c..be29171 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c >>>> @@ -796,17 +796,11 @@ static int tegra_adma_remove(struct >>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >>>> -static int tegra_adma_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) >>>> -{ >>>> - return pm_runtime_suspended(dev) == false; >>>> -} >>>> -#endif >>>> - >>>> static const struct dev_pm_ops tegra_adma_dev_pm_ops = { >>>> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(tegra_adma_runtime_suspend, >>>> tegra_adma_runtime_resume, NULL) >>>> - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(tegra_adma_pm_suspend, NULL) >>>> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend, >>>> + pm_runtime_force_resume) >>>> }; >>> Looking at our downstream kernel we use LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP for these. Any >>> reason why you changed this? >> I think, I just wanted to replace function calls for system sleep here >> and probably did >> not see exactly what we have in downstream kernel at that point. Looking >> at the commit >> log in downstream, it might qualify for separate patch. >> Let me know if you think, its better to add here. > I see no reason to change this from what we have been using and testing > downstream. I don't think that this warrants yet another patch for this. > Furthermore, the changelog references 'late' so it does not seem to > align with the change itself. Agree, will update. Thanks. > > Cheers > Jon >
| |