On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 21:30 +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
[...]

quoted

	if (assert)
		pm_runtime_get_sync();
	spin_lock_irqsave();
	/* ... */
	spin_unlock_irqrestore();
	if (assert && asserted_before)
		pm_runtime_put();

On a second thought this doesn't work because, for the first assertion,
the runtime put will never be called, if the asserted_before does not count
the current assertion.

I'm not sure I follow. The first assert will increment device usage
0 -> 1, all others asserts will just temporarily increment and decrement
1 -> 2 -> 1. Isn't this just missing one
	if (!assert && !asserted_after)
		pm_runtime_put()
to do the last deassert 1 -> 0 transition?

If it counts the current assertion, then every assertion
will end with runtime put. None of these options work here.

How about the following:

	if (assert && !test_and_set_bit(1, &drvdata->rst_hws[id].asserted))     
		pm_runtime_get_sync(rcdev->dev);                                
                                                                        
	spin_lock_irqsave(&drvdata->lock, flags);                               
                                                                        
	reg = readl(reg_addr);                                                  
	if (assert)                                                             
		writel(reg & ~(mask << shift), reg_addr);                       
	else                                                                    
		writel(reg | (mask << shift), reg_addr);                        
                                                                        
	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&drvdata->lock, flags);                          
                                                                        
	if (!assert && test_and_clear_bit(1, &drvdata->rst_hws[id].asserted))   
		pm_runtime_put(rcdev->dev);                                     
                                                                        
This would only call the get_sync/put once for each reset bit.

Yes, that should work. I think it is a much better idea, no more looping
through the entire reset control array.

regards
Philipp

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel