Re: Question about suspend/resume clock handling in dwc3-of-simple.c

From: Felipe Balbi
Date: Tue Sep 13 2016 - 01:36:08 EST


Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Should it be clk_disable_unprepare(), or maybe something like the
>> > following
>> >
>> > if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
>> > clk_disable_unprepare();
>> > else
>> > clk_unprepare();
>> I'm not sure how balanced those calls are, yeah. I don't have HW to test
>> PM with. But note that as it is, there is no actual runtime PM support,
>> so clk_disable_unprepare() will always be necessary.
>> Perhaps we will find further issues when someone tries to use runtime PM
>> with dwc3-of-simple. ;-)
> We are working on code derived from it, so unless I can convince the author
> that he can not just use clk_unprepare() I suspect we'll hit the problem.
> If so, I'll let you know.

Are you sending that upstream? Depending on your requirements, it might
be easier to patch dwc3-of-simple.c then adding yet another glue layer :-)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature