Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] iio: hid-sensors: use asynchronous resume
From: Dmitry Torokhov <hidden>
Date: 2016-08-15 17:14:41
Also in:
linux-iio
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, 2016-08-15 at 08:45 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:quoted
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Jonathan Cameron [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 15/08/16 15:07, Jonathan Cameron wrote:quoted
On 07/08/16 11:15, Jiri Kosina wrote:quoted
On Sun, 7 Aug 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:quoted
Some platforms power off sensor hubs during S3 suspend, which will require longer time to resume. This hurts system resume time, so resume asynchronously. Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux .intel.com>Jonathan, are you going to cherry-pick this patch from the series? Alternatively, if you're okay with it, I can pull it in together with the whole set with your Acked-by or Reviewed-by.I'll take it via IIO. Got a bit of catching up to do (been on holiday)Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git - initially pushed out as testing for the autobuilders to play with it. This one is not really connected to the others so makes sense to take it separately. I'm out of my depth on the rest of the patches in this series and don't have time to learn enough to follow them! Sorry I can't help on that front.About this patch: me sees a new work, me does not see new calls to cancel_work_sync() or flush_work() anywhere, me gets worried.This work is scheduled during resume and is not delayed call. Only time really we need to cancel or flush if module is unloaded before resume work, not sure if this case realistic. Do you see any other case possible?
Runtime resume can happen at any time, I can unload module or unbind it at any time. I also wasn't aware that our implementation goal for locking rules/lifetime rules/etc was "realistic" instead of "correct". Thanks. -- Dmitry