From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: Boot hang regression 3.10.0-rc4 -> 3.10.0 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:32:10 -0700 Message-ID: <20130711063209.GZ5523@atomide.com> References: <20130708112553.GU5523@atomide.com> <51DAB394.3050104@ti.com> <20130708131033.GA5523@atomide.com> <51DABC81.3080409@ti.com> <20130708133512.GD31221@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <87mwpuakod.fsf@linaro.org> <20130710142633.GV5523@atomide.com> <20130710160704.GH18966@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <20130710161158.GA19716@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:26292 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751416Ab3GKGcO (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:32:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130710161158.GA19716@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Kevin Hilman , Rajendra Nayak , "Bedia, Vaibhav" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Mark Jackson , Sourav Poddar , Paul Walmsley * Felipe Balbi [130710 09:18]: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:07:04PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > how about something like below ? It makes omap_device/hwmod and > > pm_runtime agree on the initial state of the device and will prevent > > ->runtime_resume() from being called on first pm_runtime_get*() done > > during probe. > > > > This is similar to what PCI bus does (if you look at pci_pm_init()). > > > > commit 59108a500b4ab4b1a5102648a3360276dbf7df6f > > Author: Felipe Balbi > > Date: Wed Jul 10 18:50:16 2013 +0300 > > > > arm: omap2plus: unidle devices which are about to probe > > > > in order to make HWMOD and pm_runtime agree on the > > initial state of the device, we will unidle the device > > and call pm_runtime_set_active() to tell pm_runtime > > that the device is really active. > > > > By the time driver's probe() is reached, a call to > > pm_runtime_get_sync() will not cause driver's > > ->runtime_resume() method to be called at first, only > > after a successful ->runtime_suspend(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > > btw, this is RFC, haven't tested at all. Yes it does not compile, then removing the extra ; at the end of the functions, it oopses with a NULL pointer exception. Regards, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:32:10 -0700 Subject: Boot hang regression 3.10.0-rc4 -> 3.10.0 In-Reply-To: <20130710161158.GA19716@arwen.pp.htv.fi> References: <20130708112553.GU5523@atomide.com> <51DAB394.3050104@ti.com> <20130708131033.GA5523@atomide.com> <51DABC81.3080409@ti.com> <20130708133512.GD31221@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <87mwpuakod.fsf@linaro.org> <20130710142633.GV5523@atomide.com> <20130710160704.GH18966@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <20130710161158.GA19716@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Message-ID: <20130711063209.GZ5523@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Felipe Balbi [130710 09:18]: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:07:04PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > how about something like below ? It makes omap_device/hwmod and > > pm_runtime agree on the initial state of the device and will prevent > > ->runtime_resume() from being called on first pm_runtime_get*() done > > during probe. > > > > This is similar to what PCI bus does (if you look at pci_pm_init()). > > > > commit 59108a500b4ab4b1a5102648a3360276dbf7df6f > > Author: Felipe Balbi > > Date: Wed Jul 10 18:50:16 2013 +0300 > > > > arm: omap2plus: unidle devices which are about to probe > > > > in order to make HWMOD and pm_runtime agree on the > > initial state of the device, we will unidle the device > > and call pm_runtime_set_active() to tell pm_runtime > > that the device is really active. > > > > By the time driver's probe() is reached, a call to > > pm_runtime_get_sync() will not cause driver's > > ->runtime_resume() method to be called at first, only > > after a successful ->runtime_suspend(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > > btw, this is RFC, haven't tested at all. Yes it does not compile, then removing the extra ; at the end of the functions, it oopses with a NULL pointer exception. Regards, Tony