On Thu, Jun 11 2015 at 18:13 -0600, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 11.06.2015 01:13, Lina Iyer wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jun 07 2015 at 03:21 -0600, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

W dniu 05.06.2015 o 07:29, Lina Iyer pisze:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -1266,11 +1338,18 @@ int __pm_genpd_add_device(struct

generic_pm_domain *genpd, struct device *dev,
     if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd) || IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev))
         return -EINVAL;

+    /* Devices in an IRQ safe PM Domain have to be irq safe too */

Why? Can you add this information here? Previously there was a reason in
case of irq_safe devices which you removed leaving only policy.

Sorry, your question is not clear to me.
I believe this is a new requirement that enforces the contained devices
of an irq-safe domain to be irq-safe as well.

What I wanted to say is that it would be nice if comment explained why
domain have to be IRQ safe too. Without this "WHY" answer the comment is
quite redundant - the "if" statement is obvious. But the "WHY" is not
such obvious.

Previous comments in few places mentioned the answer:
/*
* We can't allow to power off the PM domain if it holds an irq_safe
* device. That's beacuse we use mutexes to protect data while power
* off and on the PM domain, thus we can't execute in atomic context.
*/

Oh, yes. Will fix it.

Thanks,
Lina