Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dmaengine: tegra210-adma: update system sleep callbacks

[Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com>]

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
>