Hi, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> writes: > On 09/12/2016 10:35 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> writes: >>>>> Should it be clk_disable_unprepare(), or maybe something like the >>>>> following >>>>> >>>>> if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) >>>>> clk_disable_unprepare(); >>>>> else >>>>> clk_unprepare(); >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how balanced those calls are, yeah. I don't have HW to test >>>> PM with. But note that as it is, there is no actual runtime PM support, >>>> so clk_disable_unprepare() will always be necessary. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we will find further issues when someone tries to use runtime PM >>>> with dwc3-of-simple. ;-) >>>> >>> >>> We are working on code derived from it, so unless I can convince the author >>> that he can not just use clk_unprepare() I suspect we'll hit the problem. >>> If so, I'll let you know. >> >> Are you sending that upstream? Depending on your requirements, it might >> be easier to patch dwc3-of-simple.c then adding yet another glue layer :-) >> > Yes. It will be a glue layer. So far that looks like the cleanest solution.
fair enough, take your time ;-) -- balbi
