Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] DMA: tegra-apb: Correct runtime-pm usage
From: Jon Hunter
Date: Mon Aug 24 2015 - 09:23:01 EST
On 24/08/15 10:22, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:47:13AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 23/08/15 15:17, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 02:49:09PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> @@ -1543,7 +1531,7 @@ static int tegra_dma_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>> int ret;
>>>> /* Enable clock before accessing register */
>>>> - ret = tegra_dma_runtime_resume(dev);
>>>> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>>> why is this required ?
>> Because the clock could be disabled when this function is called. This
>> function saves the DMA context so that if the context is lost during
>> suspend, it can be restored.
> Have you verified this? Coz my understanding is that when PM does suspend it
> will esnure you are runtime resume if runtime suspended and then will do
> So you do not need to do above
I see what you are saying. I did some testing with ftrace today to trace
rpm and suspend/resume calls. If the dma controller is runtime suspended
and I do not call pm_runtime_get_sync() above then I do not see any
runtime resume of the dma controller prior to suspend. Now I was hoping
that this would cause a complete kernel crash but it did not and so the
DMA clock did not appear to be needed here (at least on the one board I
tested). However, I would not go as far as to remove this and prefer to
keep as above.
Furthermore, other drivers do similar things, including the sirf dma
controller (see sirf-dma.c).
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/