Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | | Subject | Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 3/5] PM: Support for system-wide power transitions in generic power domains | | Date | Mon, 9 May 2011 21:20:41 +0200 |
| |
On Monday, May 09, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 8 May 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > > > Make generic power domains support system-wide power transitions > > (system suspend and hibernation). Add suspend, resume, freeze and > > thaw callbacks to be associated with struct generic_power_domain > > objects and make pm_genpd_init() use them as appropriate. > > ... > > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/domain.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/power/domain.c > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/domain.c > > @@ -273,6 +273,280 @@ static int pm_genpd_runtime_resume(struc > > > > #endif /* CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME */ > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > + > > +/** > > + * pm_genpd_powered_down - Check if power has been removed from a power domain. > > + * @genpd: Power domain to check. > > + */ > > +static bool pm_genpd_powered_down(struct generic_power_domain *genpd) > > +{ > > + bool ret; > > + > > + mutex_lock(&genpd->lock); > > + ret = genpd->power_is_off; > > + mutex_unlock(&genpd->lock); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > What is the purpose of the mutex? On the face of it, there's nothing > to prevent another thread from changing the domain's power state in > between the mutex_unlock() call and the return statement.
Now, that I think of it, the mutex isn't really necessary.
genpd->power_is_off is only changed by the runtime PM code that will never be called during system suspend if genpd->power_is_off is set already.
I'm going to post an update shortly, I'll include a fix for that in it.
Thanks, Rafael
|  |