"Yang, Wenyou" <[email protected]> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 10:22 PM >> To: Mark Brown >> Cc: Yang, Wenyou; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> Ferre, >> Nicolas; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi/atmel: add support for runtime PM >> >> Mark Brown <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:02:35AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> >> Wenyou Yang <[email protected]> writes: >> > >> >> > + if (!pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) { >> >> > + clk_disable_unprepare(as->clk); >> >> > + pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(dev); >> >> > + } >> > >> >> a.k.a. pm_runtime_put_sync() since the ->runtime_suspend() callback >> >> does the same thing. >> > >> > Will that do the right thing when runtime PM is disabled in Kconfig? >> >> Good point. >> >> Then the way to make this cleaner, and obvious on inspection that system >> suspend/resume are doing the same thing as runtime suspend/resume is to have >> - >> >suspend call the runtime_suspend function. >> >> The runtime suspend/resume functions then should be wrapped in CONFIG_PM >> instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. > But if the runtime PM is disabled, __pm_runtime_idle() return -ENOSYS, > which invoked by pm_runtime_put_sync(), in spite of the runtime > suspend/resume functions wrapper,
You won't be calling _put_sync(), instead you'll just directly call atmel_spi_runtime_suspend(). The goal is to make it obvious upon reading that ->suspend and ->runtime_suspend are doing exactly the same thing. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
