[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230310065140.GI7501@atomide.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:51:40 +0200
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/1] serial: core: Start managing serial controllers
to enable runtime PM
* Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [230309 13:07]:
> * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> [230309 12:23]:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:57:08AM +0200, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > + err = pm_runtime_get(port_dev);
> >
> > Is not sync API a deliberate choice? Do we need to comment on why is so?
>
> I don't think it can be sync version.. See where all __uart_start() may
> get called from. The pm_runtime_get() here is needed so the check for
> pm_runtime_active() won't be racy. Maybe we can now leave out the
> "start TX anyways" part though.
To clarify, the reason we no longer need the check for "start TX anyways"
is we now do pm_runtime_get() on the new port_dev. Earlier we tried to do
it on the physical serial port driver dev where runtime PM possibly was
not enabled.
Regards,
Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists