[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230905094535.GK103419@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 09:45:35 +0000
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>
CC: James Schulman <james.schulman@...rus.com>,
David Rhodes <david.rhodes@...rus.com>,
Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"Stefan Binding" <sbinding@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] ASoC: cs35l41: Use devm_pm_runtime_enable()
On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 12:06:21AM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> Simplify runtime PM during probe by converting pm_runtime_enable() to
> the managed version.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>
> ---
> @@ -1376,7 +1379,6 @@ void cs35l41_remove(struct cs35l41_private *cs35l41)
> cancel_work_sync(&cs35l41->mdsync_up_work);
>
> pm_runtime_get_sync(cs35l41->dev);
> - pm_runtime_disable(cs35l41->dev);
>
> regmap_write(cs35l41->regmap, CS35L41_IRQ1_MASK1, 0xFFFFFFFF);
> if (cs35l41->hw_cfg.bst_type == CS35L41_SHD_BOOST_PASS ||
Are we sure this is safe? The remove handler appears to be
written to disable pm_runtime at the start presumably to stop the
resume/suspend handler running during the remove callback.
Whereas after this change the pm_runtime isn't disabled until
after the remove callback has run. Does this open a window were
we could get an erroneous pm_runtime suspend after the
pm_runtime_put_noidle?
Thanks,
Charles
Powered by blists - more mailing lists