[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d1k7x5cb.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:05:40 +0300
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about suspend/resume clock handling in dwc3-of-simple.c
Hi,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> writes:
> On 09/12/2016 10:35 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> writes:
>>>>> Should it be clk_disable_unprepare(), or maybe something like the
>>>>> following
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
>>>>> clk_disable_unprepare();
>>>>> else
>>>>> clk_unprepare();
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how balanced those calls are, yeah. I don't have HW to test
>>>> PM with. But note that as it is, there is no actual runtime PM support,
>>>> so clk_disable_unprepare() will always be necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we will find further issues when someone tries to use runtime PM
>>>> with dwc3-of-simple. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are working on code derived from it, so unless I can convince the author
>>> that he can not just use clk_unprepare() I suspect we'll hit the problem.
>>> If so, I'll let you know.
>>
>> Are you sending that upstream? Depending on your requirements, it might
>> be easier to patch dwc3-of-simple.c then adding yet another glue layer :-)
>>
> Yes. It will be a glue layer. So far that looks like the cleanest solution.
fair enough, take your time ;-)
--
balbi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists