[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57189B09.4030402@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:19:05 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"Pawel Moll" <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"Stephen Warren" <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 07/14] genirq: Add runtime power management support for
IRQ chips
On 20/04/16 18:11, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> writes:
>
>> Some IRQ chips may be located in a power domain outside of the CPU
>> subsystem and hence will require device specific runtime power
>> management. In order to support such IRQ chips, add a pointer for a
>> device structure to the irq_chip structure, and if this pointer is
>> populated by the IRQ chip driver and CONFIG_PM is selected in the kernel
>> configuration, then the pm_runtime_get/put APIs for this chip will be
>> called when an IRQ is requested/freed, respectively.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -1891,10 +1906,18 @@ int setup_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction *act)
>>
>> if (!desc || !irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid(desc))
>> return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + retval = irq_chip_pm_get(&desc->irq_data);
>> + if (retval < 0)
>> + return retval;
>> +
>> chip_bus_lock(desc);
>> retval = __setup_irq(irq, desc, act);
>> chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
>>
>> + if (retval)
>> + irq_chip_pm_get(&desc->irq_data);
>> +
>
> Shouldn't this one be a _put() ?
Good grief! Yes it should. Sorry, will fix :-(
> Otherwise, LGTM
>
> Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Thanks!
Jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists