On 11/13/2013 06:51 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:08:30PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
index b69dd9a..f97b34b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c

@@ -621,6 +621,7 @@ static int _od_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev)
 
 	if (!ret && !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
 		if (pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev) == 0) {
+			pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);

don't you have to disable pm_runtime around status changes ? Or is
pm_runtime already disabled by the time we get here ?

pm_runtime is already disabled by the time no_irq suspend is invoked.

quoted

@@ -634,10 +635,10 @@ static int _od_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
 	struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
 	struct omap_device *od = to_omap_device(pdev);
 
-	if ((od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) &&
-	    !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
+	if (od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) {
 		od->flags &= ~OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED;
 		omap_device_enable(pdev);
+		pm_runtime_set_active(dev);

ditto, also pm_runtime_set_active() may fail.

again, pm_runtime is not yet active here yet - we just restore the pm
runtime state with which we went down with -> and that is not expected
to fail either - So, how about just adding a WARN if our expectation
of balanced operation was somehow broken in the future with changes to
runtime framework?

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon