Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 12 November 2015 at 19:43, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:04:09AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >> > OK >> > >> > If we did that, all devices that had just been unbound from their drivers >> > and had runtime PM disabled after that would be set to "suspended"

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 12 November 2015 at 19:43, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:04:09AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >> > OK >> > >> > If we did that, all devices that had just been unbound from their drivers >> > and had runtime PM disabled after that would

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hello, On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:04:09AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > OK > > > > If we did that, all devices that had just been unbound from their drivers > > and had runtime PM disabled after that would be set to "suspended" by the > > core, right? > > Yes, that's the idea. I will send a

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 12 November 2015 at 02:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:03:52 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 11 November 2015 at 00:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> +Rafael, Alan >> >> >> >> On 10 November 2015

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 12 November 2015 at 02:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:03:52 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 11 November 2015 at 00:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hello, On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:04:09AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > OK > > > > If we did that, all devices that had just been unbound from their drivers > > and had runtime PM disabled after that would be set to "suspended" by the > > core, right? > > Yes, that's the idea. I will send a

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:03:52 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 11 November 2015 at 00:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> +Rafael, Alan > >> > >> On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Ulf, > >>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 11 November 2015 at 00:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> +Rafael, Alan >> >> On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven >> wrote: >> > Hi Ulf, >> > > > [cut] > >> >> >> >> The problem is that the runtime PM status of the

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 11 November 2015 at 00:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> +Rafael, Alan >> >> On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven >> wrote: >> > Hi Ulf, >> > > > [cut] > >> >> >> >> The problem

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:03:52 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 11 November 2015 at 00:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> +Rafael, Alan > >> > >> On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi Geert > > - pm_runtime_put(dev); > > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > > pm_runtime_disable(dev); > > > > return 0; > > While I can confirm this fixes the issue, I think this is a bug in the PM > core, and thus your patch is merely a workaround. > > Morimoto-san: I

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:30:51 AM Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:00:38PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > +Rafael, Alan > > > > On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven > > wrote: > > > Hi Ulf, > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > +Rafael, Alan > > On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > [cut] > >> > >> The problem is that the runtime PM status of the device isn't > >> correctly updated at ->remove(). The effect is that the

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:00:38PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > +Rafael, Alan > > On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson > > wrote: > >> On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven > >> wrote: > >>>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

+Rafael, Alan On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto >>> wrote: From: Kuninori

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi Ulf, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto >> wrote: >>> From: Kuninori Morimoto >>> >>> It is using pm_runtime_get_sync() on probe(). Let's use >>>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Morimoto-san, Ulf, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto > wrote: >> From: Kuninori Morimoto >> >> It is using pm_runtime_get_sync() on probe(). Let's use >> pm_runtime_put_sync() instead of pm_runtime_put().

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi Morimoto-san, Ulf, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > From: Kuninori Morimoto > > It is using pm_runtime_get_sync() on probe(). Let's use > pm_runtime_put_sync() instead of pm_runtime_put(). Otherwise thermal > sensor doesn't work after unbind/re-bind > >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:00:38PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > +Rafael, Alan > > On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson > > wrote: > >> On 10 November 2015 at

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 02:00:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > +Rafael, Alan > > On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > [cut] > >> > >> The problem is that the runtime PM status of the device isn't > >> correctly updated at ->remove(). The

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:30:51 AM Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:00:38PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > +Rafael, Alan > > > > On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven > > wrote: > > > Hi Ulf, > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi Morimoto-san, Ulf, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > From: Kuninori Morimoto > > It is using pm_runtime_get_sync() on probe(). Let's use > pm_runtime_put_sync() instead of pm_runtime_put().

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi Ulf, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto >> wrote: >>> From: Kuninori Morimoto

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Morimoto-san, Ulf, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Kuninori Morimoto > wrote: >> From: Kuninori Morimoto >> >> It is using

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

+Rafael, Alan On 10 November 2015 at 11:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 10 November 2015 at 09:18, Geert Uytterhoeven >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015

Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

Hi Geert > > - pm_runtime_put(dev); > > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > > pm_runtime_disable(dev); > > > > return 0; > > While I can confirm this fixes the issue, I think this is a bug in the PM > core, and thus your patch is merely a workaround. > > Morimoto-san: I

[PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

From: Kuninori Morimoto It is using pm_runtime_get_sync() on probe(). Let's use pm_runtime_put_sync() instead of pm_runtime_put(). Otherwise thermal sensor doesn't work after unbind/re-bind Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto --- drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1

[PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()

From: Kuninori Morimoto It is using pm_runtime_get_sync() on probe(). Let's use pm_runtime_put_sync() instead of pm_runtime_put(). Otherwise thermal sensor doesn't work after unbind/re-bind Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto ---