On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:53:21AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 07/18/2014 11:31 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:35:10AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >>>On 07/17/2014 06:18 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>>
> > >>No, this is okay. If you look, it checks for "up
On 07/18/2014 11:31 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:35:10AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>On 07/17/2014 06:18 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> >>No, this is okay. If you look, it checks for "up->ier &
> >>UART_IER_THRI". On the second invocation it will see that this
>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:35:10AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 07/17/2014 06:18 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> >> No, this is okay. If you look, it checks for "up->ier &
> >> UART_IER_THRI". On the second invocation it will see that this
> >> bit is already set and therefore won't c
On 07/17/2014 06:18 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> No, this is okay. If you look, it checks for "up->ier &
>> UART_IER_THRI". On the second invocation it will see that this
>> bit is already set and therefore won't call get_sync() for the
>> second time. That bit is removed in the _stop_tx() path.
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 06:06:59PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 07/17/2014 06:02 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c
> >> b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c index 2e4a93b..480a1c0
> >> 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c
On 07/17/2014 06:02 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c
>> b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c index 2e4a93b..480a1c0
>> 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c +++
>> b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c @@ -1283,6 +1283,9 @@
>> static inline voi
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:43:00PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Peter Hurley | 2014-07-17 11:31:59 [-0400]:
>
> >On 07/16/2014 12:06 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >>>On 07/16/2014 05:16 PM, Felipe Balbi
* Peter Hurley | 2014-07-17 11:31:59 [-0400]:
>On 07/16/2014 12:06 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>>On 07/16/2014 05:16 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
I wonder if you should get_sync() on start_tx() and only
put_autosuspend(
On 07/16/2014 12:06 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 07/16/2014 05:16 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
I wonder if you should get_sync() on start_tx() and only
put_autosuspend() at stop_tx(). I guess the outcome would be
largely the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:40:01PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 07/16/2014 06:06 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> >>> well, other than in probe and other functions which need to
> >>> make sure clocks are on, but it seems unnecessary to
> >>> enable/disable in every function.
> >>
> >>
On 07/16/2014 06:06 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> well, other than in probe and other functions which need to
>>> make sure clocks are on, but it seems unnecessary to
>>> enable/disable in every function.
>>
>> What do you have in mind? Do you plan to let the uart on while
>> the minicom is attache
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 07/16/2014 05:16 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Felipe,
>
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > wrote:
> >> @@ -1280,6 +1285,7 @@ static void serial8250_stop_tx(struc
On 07/16/2014 05:16 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Felipe,
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
>> @@ -1280,6 +1285,7 @@ static void serial8250_stop_tx(struct
>> uart_port *port) struct uart_8250_port *up = container_of(port,
>> struct uart_8250_port, p
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> @@ -1280,6 +1285,7 @@ static void serial8250_stop_tx(struct uart_port *port)
> struct uart_8250_port *up =
> container_of(port, struct uart_8250_port, port);
>
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(port->d
While comparing the OMAP-serial and the 8250 part of this I noticed that
the the latter does not use runtime-pm. Here are the pieces. It is
basically a get before first register access and a last_busy + put after
last access.
If I understand this correct, it should do nothing as long as
pm_runtime_
15 matches
Mail list logo