[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFp+6iFsR1H8kRmg2ynGto0ZERydOc-Vk+niS_ucH20o2R7SCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 13:38:45 +0530
From: Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987@...il.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
balbi@...com, sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
kishon@...com, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] usb: xhci: Enable runtime pm in xhci-plat
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>
>> By enabling runtime pm in this driver allows users of
>> xhci-plat to enter into runtime pm. This is not full
>> runtime pm support (AKA xhci-plat doesn't actually power
>> anything off when in runtime suspend mode) but,
>> just basic enablement.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>
>> CC: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c | 7 +++++++
>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
>> index c9c7e13..595cb52 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>> */
>>
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>
>> @@ -149,6 +150,8 @@ static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (ret)
>> goto put_usb3_hcd;
>>
>> + pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
>
> This is generally not a good idea. You shouldn't enable a device for
> runtime PM without first telling the PM core what state it is in.
>
Right, but i am not completely sure on any fixed path to follow for
enabling runtime
power management on a device. :-(
Does it become necessary to "pm_runtime_set_active" or
"pm_runtime_set_suspended" a device
before "pm_runtime_enable" ? pm_runtime_enable would just try to
decrement the disable_depth
of the device.
>> @@ -174,6 +177,10 @@ static int xhci_plat_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
>> struct usb_hcd *hcd = platform_get_drvdata(dev);
>> struct xhci_hcd *xhci = hcd_to_xhci(hcd);
>>
>> + if (!pm_runtime_suspended(&dev->dev))
>> + pm_runtime_put(&dev->dev);
>> + pm_runtime_disable(&dev->dev);
>> +
>> usb_remove_hcd(xhci->shared_hcd);
>> usb_put_hcd(xhci->shared_hcd);
>
> This is very strange. Why have a pm_runtime_put with no balancing
> pm_runtime_get?
>
> And why use an async routine when you're about to unbind the driver?
> Don't you want the callback to occur before the unbinding?
>
> Alan Stern
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Thanks & Regards
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists