[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1303041027250.1750-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:29:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987@...il.com>
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
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >> @@ -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" ?
Yes, it usually is necesary. And especially here, because the runtime
PM core sets the initial status of every device to RPM_SUSPENDED.
> pm_runtime_enable would just try to
> decrement the disable_depth
> of the device.
That's right. And once that happens, the PM core would think the
device was suspended even though it was really at full power.
Alan Stern
--
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