| Message ID | 20160201232833.GR19432@atomide.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [160201 15:29]: > --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c > @@ -1419,17 +1419,28 @@ void pm_runtime_init(struct device *dev) > */ > void pm_runtime_reinit(struct device *dev) > { > - if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) { > - if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE) > + int (*callback)(struct device *); > + int err; The callback and err are not needed here FYI, forgot to remove them.. Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Tony Lindgren wrote: > Does the patch below make more sense to you where we call rpm_idle? > That seems to make things behave here also. > > > > What else does __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() set initially > > > that changes things here? > > > > The usage counter, if the delay is negative. > > Yeah I don't see any difference with those. > > > I'll look at this in detail, but not right now, sorry. I'm working on > > something else ATM and I was hoping that Ulf would be able to figure > > out what's going on here. > > Yeah we need to understand what's going on here. Having the PM runtime > framework out of sync with the hardare is not good.. If we can't > figure this out we should probably revert the patch until we understand > it. > > Regards, > > Tony > > 8< ------------ > --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c > @@ -1419,17 +1419,28 @@ void pm_runtime_init(struct device *dev) > */ > void pm_runtime_reinit(struct device *dev) > { > - if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) { > - if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE) > + int (*callback)(struct device *); > + int err; > + > + if (pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) > + return; > + > + if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE) { > + if (dev->power.use_autosuspend) { > + __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev, false); > + rpm_idle(dev, RPM_AUTO); You get here only if runtime PM is disabled, right? So the rpm_idle call won't do anything -- "disabled" means don't make any callbacks. Tony, exactly what are you trying to do here? Do you want this to invoke a runtime-PM callback in the subsystem, power domain, or driver? (Is there even a driver bound to the device when this function runs?) The function's name suggests that it merely resets the data stored in dev->power without actually touching the hardware. Is that what you really want? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c @@ -1419,17 +1419,28 @@ void pm_runtime_init(struct device *dev) */ void pm_runtime_reinit(struct device *dev) { - if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) { - if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE) + int (*callback)(struct device *); + int err; + + if (pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) + return; + + if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE) { + if (dev->power.use_autosuspend) { + __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev, false); + rpm_idle(dev, RPM_AUTO); + } else { pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev); - if (dev->power.irq_safe) { - spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock); - dev->power.irq_safe = 0; - spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock); - if (dev->parent) - pm_runtime_put(dev->parent); } } + + if (dev->power.irq_safe) { + spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock); + dev->power.irq_safe = 0; + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock); + if (dev->parent) + pm_runtime_put(dev->parent); + } } /**