Re: [PATCH V5 0/7] cpufreq: suspend early/resume late: dpm_{suspend|resume}()

[Linaro]

> On 20-Feb-2014, at 7:19 am, Linaro <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> On 19-Feb-2014, at 10:56 pm, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 02/18/2014 09:15 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>> On 19-Feb-2014 1:48 AM, "Stephen Warren" <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 02/17/2014 02:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>>> On 15 February 2014 05:33, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/14/2014 03:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, it would be good to verify which part, then.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Patch 2/7 appears to stop that message from being printed during
>>>>>> suspend, and perhaps reduce the number of times it's printed during
>>>>>> resume. Patch 7/7 stops the message being printed at all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looking at patch 7, I wonder if it's simply because tegra_target() was
>>>>>> modified never to return -EBUSY, so the bug is still there, but it's
>>>>>> just been hidden.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, the bug is removed now. Its hidden in current linus/master :)
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure what that means; I still see the message:
>>> 
>>> I have given a better reply in one of the earlier mails in this thread.
>>> And skipped a more elaborative reply now.
>>> 
>>> So this failure was always there since long time, as you disable your
>>> target() fn early in suspend. But the message wasn't printed earlier.
>>> 
>>> A recently added core patch started printing this, so not a new bug.
>>> But this series fixes suspend resume completely and you wouldn't see it
>>> anymore.
>> 
>> OK, so I suppose we have two options:
>> 
>> a) Just ignore the kernel error spew since it's a known issue.
>> 
>> b) If I make the Tegra driver return 0 rather than -EBUSY, would that
>> work? It would certainly silence the error. However, I wonder if it
>> would cause the cpufreq core to get out of sync with HW; the core would
>> think that it'd set some frequency, which the driver ignored, and if it
>> later wanted to switch frequency, the call might get skipped because the
>> core thought the HW was already set to that frequency?
> 
> Option is the one you need.

Option a..--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/