Re: [PATCH v2] can: Fix bug in suspend/resume

[SÃren Brinkmann]

On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 04:09PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 11/14/2014 04:05 PM, SÃren Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 09:54AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> >> On 11/14/2014 09:16 AM, Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
> >>> The drvdata in the suspend/resume is of type struct net_device,
> >>> not the platform device.Enable the clocks in the suspend before
> >>> accessing the registers of the CAN.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Kedareswara rao Appana <appanad@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes for v2:
> >>>   - Removed the struct platform_device* from suspend/resume
> >>>     as suggest by Lothar.
> >>>   - The clocks are getting disabled and un prepared at the end of the probe. 
> >>>     In the suspend the driver is doing a register write.In order
> >>>     To do that register write we have to again enable and prepare the clocks.
> >>
> >> Please look the at suspend/resume code and count the
> >> clock_enable/disable manually. After a suspend/resume cycle, you have
> >> enabled the clock twice, but disabled it once.
> >>
> >> I think you have to abstract the clock handling behind runtime PM. I
> >> haven't done this myself yet, but the strong feeling that this is a
> >> possible solution to your problem. These links might help:
> > 
> > I agree, the clock handling looks weird. Also the clk_disable calls in
> > xcan_get_berr_counter() look suspicious to me, but I might be wrong.
> > I think you can take a look at gpio-zynq for an example for runtime_pm
> > usage. I think the usage model in that driver is similar to here.
> 
> The xcan_get_berr_counter() function is correct, when doing manual (i.e.
> non runtime-pm) clock handling. This function might be called if the
> interface is down, this means clocks are disabled.

I see, thanks for the clarification. Guess that should become
pm_runtime_get_sync() and pm_runtime_put() when converting to
runtime_pm.

	SÃren
--
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/