Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dmaengine: tegra210-adma: update system sleep callbacks

[Sameer Pujar]

On 3/13/2019 4:19 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 13/03/2019 10:40, Sameer Pujar wrote:
> > On 3/13/2019 3:58 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > On 13/03/2019 05:43, Sameer Pujar wrote:
> > > > If the driver is active till late suspend, where runtime PM cannot run,
> > > > force suspend is essential in such case to put the device in low power
> > > > state. Thus pm_runtime_force_suspend and pm_runtime_force_resume are
> > > > used as system sleep callbacks during system wide PM transitions.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sameer Pujar <spujar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Â drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c | 10 ++--------
> > > >  Â 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c b/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c
> > > > index 650cd9c..be29171 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c
> > > > @@ -796,17 +796,11 @@ static int tegra_adma_remove(struct
> > > > platform_device *pdev)
> > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂ return 0;
> > > >  Â }
> > > >  Â -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > > -static int tegra_adma_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > -{
> > > > -ÂÂÂ return pm_runtime_suspended(dev) == false;
> > > > -}
> > > > -#endif
> > > > -
> > > >  Â static const struct dev_pm_ops tegra_adma_dev_pm_ops = {
> > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂ SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(tegra_adma_runtime_suspend,
> > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ tegra_adma_runtime_resume, NULL)
> > > > -ÂÂÂ SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(tegra_adma_pm_suspend, NULL)
> > > > +ÂÂÂ SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
> > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ pm_runtime_force_resume)
> > > >  Â };
> > > Looking at our downstream kernel we use LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP for these. Any
> > > reason why you changed this?
> > I think, I just wanted to replace function calls for system sleep here
> > and probably did
> > not see exactly what we have in downstream kernel at that point. Looking
> > at the commit
> > log in downstream, it might qualify for separate patch.
> > Let me know if you think, its better to add here.
> I see no reason to change this from what we have been using and testing
> downstream. I don't think that this warrants yet another patch for this.
> Furthermore, the changelog references 'late' so it does not seem to
> align with the change itself.
Agree, will update. Thanks.
> Cheers
> Jon