On Monday, February 5, 2018 5:01:18 AM CET Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-02-18, 13:28, Bo Yan wrote: > > On 02/02/2018 11:34 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > >I rather have this fixed in the dpm_suspend/resume() code. This is just > > >masking the first issue that's being caused by unbalanced error handling. > > >If that means adding flags in dpm_suspend/resume() then that's what we > > >should do right now and clean it up later if it can be improved. Making > > >cpufreq more messy doesn't seem like the right answer. > > +1 > > > dpm_suspend and dpm_resume by themselves are not balanced in this particular > > case. As it's currently structured, dpm_resume can't be omitted even if > > dpm_suspend is skipped due to earlier failure. I think checking > > cpufreq_suspended flag is a reasonable compromise. If we can find a way to > > make dpm_suspend/dpm_resume also balanced, that will be best. > > I think cpufreq is just one of the users which broke. Others didn't break > because: > > - They don't have a complicated resume part. > - Or we just don't know that they broke.
No and no. > Resuming something that never suspended is just broken by design. Yeah, its > much > simpler in this particular case to fix cpufreq core but the > suspend/resume/hibernation part is really core kernel and should be fixed to > avoid such band-aids. 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. Thanks, Rafael
