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:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:30:00 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>,
        Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
        Nadav Haklai <nadavh@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] PCI: aardvark: add suspend to RAM support
Message-ID: <20181213153000.245d7d5f@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <20181213105302.GA5330@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20181123141831.8214-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
        <1999610.6DN9RK2Tt3@aspire.rjw.lan>
        <20181204094558.GA24588@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
        <1966692.fVZYlVgWHv@aspire.rjw.lan>
        <20181211141627.GA526@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
        <154469162632.19322.13092710881803732022@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
        <20181213105302.GA5330@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
Organization: Bootlin
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Lorenzo,

> > If that's really the case, then I can see how one device and it's
> > children are suspended and the irq for it is disabled but the providing
> > devices (clk, regulator, bus controller, etc.) are still fully active
> > and not suspended but in fact completely usable and able to service
> > interrupts. If that all makes sense, then I would answer the question
> > with a definitive "yes it's all fine" because the clk consumer could be
> > in the NOIRQ phase of its suspend but the clk provider wouldn't have
> > even started suspending yet when clk_disable_unprepare() is called.  
> 
> That's a very good summary and address my concern, I still question this
> patch correctness (and many others that carry out clk operations in S2R
> NOIRQ phase), they may work but do not tell me they are rock solid given
> your accurate summary above.

I understand your concern but I don't see any alternative right now
and a deep rework of the PM core to respect such dependency is not
something that can be done in a reasonable amount of time. With
regard to this constraint, do you think it is worth blocking the
series?


Thanks,
Miquèl