On 25/08/15 23:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On 8/25/2015 11:37 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
[snip]
>> Vinod, thinking about this some more, I am wondering if it is just
>> better to get rid of the suspend/resume callbacks and simply handling
>> the state in the runtime suspend/resume callbacks. I
On 25/08/15 23:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On 8/25/2015 11:37 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
[snip]
Vinod, thinking about this some more, I am wondering if it is just
better to get rid of the suspend/resume callbacks and simply handling
the state in the runtime suspend/resume callbacks. I think
On 8/25/2015 11:37 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 25/08/15 01:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 07:51:43 PM Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 24/08/15 10:22, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:47:13AM +0100, Jon Hunter
On 25/08/15 01:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, August 24, 2015 07:51:43 PM Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/08/15 10:22, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:47:13AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On
On 25/08/15 01:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 07:51:43 PM Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
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
On 8/25/2015 11:37 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 25/08/15 01:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 07:51:43 PM Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 24/08/15 10:22, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:47:13AM +0100, Jon Hunter
On Monday, August 24, 2015 07:51:43 PM Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> >
> > 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,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> 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:
> >>>
> @@
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)
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
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 =
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;
/*
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
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
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
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
On Monday, August 24, 2015 07:51:43 PM Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
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
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);
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
The tegra-apb DMA driver enables runtime-pm but never calls
pm_runtime_get/put and hence the runtime-pm callbacks are never invoked.
The driver manages the clocks by directly calling clk_prepare_enable()
and clk_unprepare_disable().
Fix this by replacing the clk_prepare_enable() and
The tegra-apb DMA driver enables runtime-pm but never calls
pm_runtime_get/put and hence the runtime-pm callbacks are never invoked.
The driver manages the clocks by directly calling clk_prepare_enable()
and clk_unprepare_disable().
Fix this by replacing the clk_prepare_enable() and
20 matches
Mail list logo
