Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:35:46 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc:     Bo Yan <byan@nvidia.com>, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>,
        sgurrappadi@nvidia.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: skip cpufreq resume if it's not suspended
Message-ID: <20180205090546.GE28462@vireshk-i7>
References: <1516744675-21233-1-git-send-email-byan@nvidia.com>
 <dc33ef16-9684-3d8d-f4cc-6e24697f007f@nvidia.com>
 <20180205040118.GB28462@vireshk-i7>
 <1710637.vo8uP0oTBm@aspire.rjw.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1710637.vo8uP0oTBm@aspire.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05-02-18, 09:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> By design (which I admit may be confusing) it should be fine to call
> dpm_resume_end() after a failing dpm_suspend_start(), whatever the reason
> for the failure is.  cpufreq_suspend/resume() don't take that into account,
> everybody else does.

Hmm, I see. Can't do much then, just fix the only broken piece of code :)

-- 
viresh