2013-04-07 10:39:38

by Ohad Ben Cohen

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: core: call pm_runtime_put_sync in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case

Hi Li,

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Li Fei <[email protected]> wrote:
> Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
> is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
> value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
> pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.

As with the remoteproc case, it is probably better to call the
put_noidle variant here. This way you are sure not to erroneously
invoke any underlying pm handler where your only intention is to fix
usage_count.

Thanks,
Ohad.

2013-04-08 01:36:27

by Li Fei

Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: core: call pm_runtime_put_sync in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case

>
> Hi Li,
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Li Fei <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
> > is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
> > value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
> > pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
>
> As with the remoteproc case, it is probably better to call the
> put_noidle variant here. This way you are sure not to erroneously
> invoke any underlying pm handler where your only intention is to fix
> usage_count.

Thanks for your check and feedback, and will update it in V2 soon.

Regards,
Fei
>
> Thanks,
> Ohad.