Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

Hi Ulf, On Thursday 21 Apr 2016 15:52:06 Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 21 April 2016 at 14:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday 21 Apr 2016 11:10:19 Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> On 21 April 2016 at 01:30, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> On Monday 07 Mar 2016 11:10:08 Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] >

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

On 21 April 2016 at 14:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Thursday 21 Apr 2016 11:10:19 Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 21 April 2016 at 01:30, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> > On Monday 07 Mar 2016 11:10:08 Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> I agree,

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

Hi Ulf, On Thursday 21 Apr 2016 11:10:19 Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 21 April 2016 at 01:30, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Monday 07 Mar 2016 11:10:08 Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> [...] > >> > I agree, that's a better idea. Drivers shouldn't call > pm_runtime_force_resume() if they haven't

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

Hello, Reviving this old thread. On Monday 07 Mar 2016 11:10:08 Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > > >> I agree, that's a better idea. Drivers shouldn't call > >> pm_runtime_force_resume() if they haven't called > >> pm_runtime_force_suspend(), so checking the PM use count should be fine. > >> I'll

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

[...] >> I agree, that's a better idea. Drivers shouldn't call >> pm_runtime_force_resume() if they haven't called pm_runtime_force_suspend(), >> so checking the PM use count should be fine. I'll modify the patch, test it >> and resubmit. > > I gave it an unfortunately unsuccessful try. The

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > >> What I was thinking though, but it might be a bit controversial. :-)... > > >> Instead of relying on whether we actually forced runtime suspend > > >> earlier, why couldn't we instead check the runtime PM usage count of > > >> the device? > > >>

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

Hi Ulf and Alan, Thank you for the review. On Friday 04 March 2016 10:24:10 Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On 3 March 2016 at 21:16, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> The pm_runtime_force_suspend() and pm_runtime_force_resume() helpers are > >> designed to help driver

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

+ Alan On 3 March 2016 at 21:16, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > The pm_runtime_force_suspend() and pm_runtime_force_resume() helpers are > designed to help driver being RPM-centric by offering an easy way to > manager runtime PM state during system suspend

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

Hello. On 03/03/2016 11:16 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: Noticed a few typos as well, some alreayd reported... The pm_runtime_force_suspend() and pm_runtime_force_resume() helpers are designed to help driver being RPM-centric by offering an easy way to manager runtime PM state during system

Re: [PATCH] PM / Runtime: Only force-resume device if it has been force-suspended

Hi Kevin, (CC'ing Ulf) Thank you for the review. On Thursday 03 March 2016 12:35:53 Kevin Hilman wrote: > Laurent Pinchart writes: > > The pm_runtime_force_suspend() and pm_runtime_force_resume() helpers are > > designed to help driver being