[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BEC9F67575FA1E429CA7CF5AE9BE363442B485@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 01:36:20 +0000
From: "Li, Fei" <fei.li@...el.com>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
CC: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"johan.rudholm@...ricsson.com" <johan.rudholm@...ricsson.com>,
"subhashj@...eaurora.org" <subhashj@...eaurora.org>,
Philip Rakity <prakity@...vell.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"thierry.reding@...onic-design.de" <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
"sachin.kamat@...aro.org" <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: core: call pm_runtime_put_sync in
pm_runtime_get_sync failed case
>
> Hi Li,
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Li Fei <fei.li@...el.com> wrote:
> > Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
> > is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
> > value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
> > pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
>
> As with the remoteproc case, it is probably better to call the
> put_noidle variant here. This way you are sure not to erroneously
> invoke any underlying pm handler where your only intention is to fix
> usage_count.
Thanks for your check and feedback, and will update it in V2 soon.
Regards,
Fei
>
> Thanks,
> Ohad.
--
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