Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHp75Vdo22ofbCktupFYbfYy6PQ609fsk5B6u2b3FpfKxs8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200724223746.GA1538991@bjorn-Precision-5520> <CAHp75VdSr1rguc9HJVh_rA1nBh1uyCdr18eyPosWPzCH1K2=zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VfKeTCBOne3tDSM46q6m_FE+7hS3H9Hx5C3RRPvueqZAQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200727070652.GA5400@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200727070652.GA5400@gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:12:16 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdzAk6U_mKn32+dmw1aNyREtaXMB6sHubE8G9imtv5=3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] spi: spi-topcliff-pch: use generic power management
To:     Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@helgaas.com>,
        Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhav.varodek@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:08 AM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 01:44:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 1:42 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > The only problem here, is that the 2nd is already in the Mark's tree
> > and he doesn't do rebases.
> > So, it will be the other way around.
> >
> Concluding from yours and Bjorn's suggestion, I will drop the
> device_wakeup_disable() call form .resume() and send the fix. I will also track
> the drivers who got similar upgrades and went un-noticed.

Thanks for doing this!

> As Bjorn mentioned, the problem is that I don't have hardware to test, so I just
> replicated the legacy behaviour in generic by replacing
> pci_enable_wake(....,false) with device_wakeup_disable().
>
> So, from now, while upgrading drivers with generic PM, should I completely drop
> the pci_enable_wake(....,false) calls if both .suspend() and .resume() try to
> wakeup-disable the device?

I guess the best approach is to rely on the PCI core to do the right thing.
But mention this change in the commit message that we will have a
track of the changes properly.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko