On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:20:14AM +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote: > Hello Alexandre, > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:05:51AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > There is no point in calling suspend/resume for unused > > clockevents as they are already stopped and disabled. > > > > Furthermore, it can take some time to wait for some IPs to stop counting. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com> > > Reported-by: Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.roc...@finsecur.com> > > Indeed, this is way better from what I did. > > > > + if (dev->suspend && dev->mode != CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED) > > I wonder if we should use > CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN > (or CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED || CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN) instead of > !CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED.
Definitely - consider the effect of the original patch set on a clock source which is being used, has PM support, but does not have an ->enable callback. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
