[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFprWcita5sbdwTqbdi2CMW4gx7_UB7+kMd9R2rqXdcALQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:53:03 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smsc911x: Synchronize the runtime PM status during
system suspend
On 27 October 2016 at 13:41, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>> The smsc911c driver puts its device into low power state when entering
>> system suspend. Although it doesn't update the device's runtime PM status
>> to RPM_SUSPENDED, which causes problems for a parent device.
>>
>> In particular, when the runtime PM status of the parent is requested to be
>> updated to RPM_SUSPENDED, the runtime PM core prevent this, because it's
>> forbidden to runtime suspend a device, which has an active child.
>>
>> Fix this by updating the runtime PM status of the smsc911x device to
>> RPM_SUSPENDED during system suspend. In system resume, let's reverse that
>> action by runtime resuming the device and thus also the parent.
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> The changelog sounds quite innocent, but this does fix a system crash
> during resume from s2ram.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
>> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
>> Cc: Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>
>> Fixes: 8b1107b85efd ("PM / Runtime: Don't allow to suspend a device with an active child")
>
> While the abovementioned commit made the problem visible, the root cause
> was present before, right?
Yes.
>
>> ---
>>
>> Note that the commit this change fixes is currently queued for 4.10 via
>> Rafael's linux-pm tree. So this fix should go via that tree as well.
>
> Alternatively, this could go in in v4.9 to avoid the problem from ever
> appearing in upstream?
Makes perfect sense! In that case we should remove the fixes tag.
Rafael, can you pick this up for 4.9 rc[n]?
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists