[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7/rUHCjPyNA0YNt@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:13:20 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Adrien Thierry <athierry@...hat.com>,
Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] PM: Allow calling dev_pm_domain_set() with raw
spinlock
On 2022-12-19 16:15:02 [+0100], Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> device_pm_check_callbacks() uses dev->power spinlock, which on
> PREEMPT_RT sleeps. However some PM domains on PREEMPT_RT might be using
> raw spinlocks as genpd_lock(), thus dev_pm_domain_set() must not call
> device_pm_check_callbacks(). In fact device_pm_check_callbacks() is not
> strictly related to dev_pm_domain_set() and calls for these two can be
> made separately.
>
> Add new helper dev_pm_domain_set_no_cb() which will only set PM domain
> but will not check the callbacks, leaving the checl to the caller.
s/checl/check/
But this I comprehend.
> Cc: Adrien Thierry <athierry@...hat.com>
> Cc: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
> Cc: linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists