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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <80B44AD6-78B0-4CB2-8CBA-5814B5C1A190@canonical.com>
References: <20180731061721.15831-1-kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
 <20180731061721.15831-5-kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> <CAPDyKFp0ut38EountRQ7pJPXGCQPZzzMroyBz6GAh25DJGMwkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <80B44AD6-78B0-4CB2-8CBA-5814B5C1A190@canonical.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:30:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoYU8MvWmBnLZ5j=vSBu6bFmOh7HHOJhZmo04p=feQA-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] memstick: rtsx_usb_ms: Support runtime power management
To:     Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        "Bauer.Chen" <bauer.chen@realtek.com>, ricky_wu@realtek.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux USB List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 23 August 2018 at 10:12, Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> wrote:
> at 21:29, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>> -static int rtsx_usb_ms_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>>> +static int rtsx_usb_ms_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>  {
>>>         struct rtsx_usb_ms *host = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>         struct memstick_host *msh = host->msh;
>>>
>>> -       dev_dbg(ms_dev(host), "--> %s\n", __func__);
>>> -
>>> +       host->suspend = true;
>>>         memstick_suspend_host(msh);
>>
>>
>> I missed this one. Does this really work? To me, this looks like doing
>> things upside-down.
>>
>> To suspend the host, you first need to runtime resume it, because
>> mmc_suspend_host() calls into one of the host ops and my touch the
>> device, right?
>>
>> If you want to suspend the host (actually the naming is wrong, as it's
>> about suspending/power-iff the memstick card), that should be done via
>> when the memstick core finds that the card is removed or during system
>> wide suspend.
>
>
> Do you mean the logic was wrong even before my modification?

No. I think you should keep the existing callbacks for system sleep,
they seems to do what they should.

Then add new ones for runtime PM.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe