[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ffb79668-3007-4e5a-bcc5-38f404da3287@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 22:10:28 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: dw-mmio: support suspend/resume
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 10:51:46PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 04:07:11PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 05:01:54PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > We clearly can call clk_disable(), but I'm not sure unprepare is the stage that
> > > has no side-effects here.
> > What makes you say that disable is OK?
> It's (assumed to be) paired with clk_enable() in the resume.
I'm concerned that we might manage to get a remove() on a device in
suspend through some means.
> I was talking from CLK usage perspective. However, after looking
> at the resume implementation in drivers/base/power/main.c I think
> the failed resume of one device doesn't prevent it's removal or
> anything. It just collects statistics and records an error, but
> no other actions are taken. Which means anything that needs to
> be paired between suspend/resume and not checked at remove or
> shutdown is prone to the same problem.
Yes, exactly. How likely that actually is to happen in practice is a
separate question of course.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists