From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759527Ab3KMQTv (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:19:51 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:55624 "EHLO mail-we0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756252Ab3KMQTs (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:19:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87vbzwl307.fsf@linaro.org> References: <1384297710-29694-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20131113125149.GB28192@saruman.home> <52839306.7050701@ti.com> <87vbzwl307.fsf@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:19:46 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VB25XxnrXSnKewFYWPdbBsajvy0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: maintain sane runtime pm status around suspend/resume From: Nishanth Menon To: Kevin Hilman Cc: balbi@ti.com, Tony Lindgren , Paul Walmsley , Rajendra Nayak , linux-omap , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , lkml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Nishanth Menon 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. Ofcourse. will do. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: maintain sane runtime pm status around suspend/resume Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:19:46 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1384297710-29694-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20131113125149.GB28192@saruman.home> <52839306.7050701@ti.com> <87vbzwl307.fsf@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87vbzwl307.fsf@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: balbi@ti.com, Tony Lindgren , Paul Walmsley , Rajendra Nayak , linux-omap , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , lkml List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Nishanth Menon 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. Ofcourse. will do. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:19:46 -0600 Subject: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: maintain sane runtime pm status around suspend/resume In-Reply-To: <87vbzwl307.fsf@linaro.org> References: <1384297710-29694-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20131113125149.GB28192@saruman.home> <52839306.7050701@ti.com> <87vbzwl307.fsf@linaro.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Nishanth Menon 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. Ofcourse. will do. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon