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

[Guenter Roeck]

On 09/12/2016 10:35 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 :-)
Yes. It will be a glue layer. So far that looks like the cleanest solution.

Thanks,
Guenter