On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:39:53PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:26:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:

> > @@ -2065,6 +2147,7 @@ musb_init_controller(struct device *dev, int nIrq, 
> > void __iomem *ctrl)
> >     }
> >  
> >     spin_lock_init(&musb->lock);
> > +   spin_lock_init(&musb->list_lock);
> >     musb->board_set_power = plat->set_power;
> >     musb->min_power = plat->min_power;
> >     musb->ops = plat->platform_ops;
> > @@ -2556,6 +2639,7 @@ static int musb_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >     struct musb     *musb = dev_to_musb(dev);
> >     unsigned long   flags;
> >  
> > +   WARN_ON(!list_empty(&musb->pending_list));
> 
> And this also depends on anyone attempting to queue work having first
> gotten an RPM reference (so that driver core runtime resumes the device
> before calling suspend()).
> 
> But no, there's actually still a window were this could be false when
> work is queued while runtime resuming (and eventually is executed from
> musb_queue_resume_work()).

As you just pointed out that can actually never happen and corresponding
code can be removed from musb_queue_resume_work(), so scrap this last
paragraph too. :)

Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to