[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140930195923.GB26928@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:59:23 -0500
From: Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@...sol.com>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: qup: Fix order of runtime pm initialization
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon 29 Sep 15:00 PDT 2014, Andy Gross wrote:
>
> > The runtime pm calls need to be done before populating the children via the
> > i2c_add_adapter call. If this is not done, a child can run into issues trying
> > to do i2c read/writes due to the pm_runtime_sync failing.
> >
>
> May I ask in what case this would fail? I thought we tested this as we found
> the faulty error check after calling pm_runtime_get_sync().
This is a different kind of failure. If during probe, the children do some I2C
activity, they will encounter issues with the runtime_sync due to the pm_runtime
not being initialized. However, once the qup probe completes, everything works
fine.
The original runtime_sync issue revolved around the runtime_sync return value
being misinterpreted due to the incorrect check.
<snip>
--
sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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