On 07/17/2014 04:54 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:45:03PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

quoted

+static int omap_8250_startup(struct uart_port *port)
+{
+	struct uart_8250_port *up =
+		container_of(port, struct uart_8250_port, port);
+	struct omap8250_priv *priv = port->private_data;
+
+	int ret;
+
+	if (priv->wakeirq) {
+		ret = request_irq(priv->wakeirq, omap_wake_irq,
+				port->irqflags, "wakeup irq", port);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+		disable_irq(priv->wakeirq);
+	}
+
+	ret = serial8250_do_startup(port);
+	if (ret)
+		goto err;
+
+	pm_runtime_get_sync(port->dev);

should this pm_runtime_get_sync() be placed above
serial8250_do_startup() call ?

I don't think it matters since serial8250_do_startup() has its own
pm_runtime_get_sync().

->startup(), ->shutdown() are called via omap callbacks so we could
spare in the 8250-core if we do it in the omap code before invoking the
function. The same goes for serial8250_set_termios() which is not used
by omap but has those runtime-pm stuff, too.
It would be wrong if someone would use the serial8250_do_startup()
without his own runtime-pm get but it is omap only which does this
things.
So it is not used by anyone else (right now) and if you want to keep it
to a minimum I could remove them from those places.

Sebastian