+ pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&pdev->dev, 5000); + pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); + pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
question: here you want to use pm_runtime for this platform device...
+ return 0; +}
+static int acp3x_dai_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); + return 0; +} +static struct platform_driver acp3x_dai_driver = { + .probe = acp3x_dai_probe, + .remove = acp3x_dai_remove, + .driver = { + .name = "acp3x_i2s_playcap",
... but here there is no .pm structure and I don't see any suspend/resume routines for this driver...
+ }, +};
@@ -774,13 +586,14 @@ static struct platform_driver acp3x_dma_driver = { .probe = acp3x_audio_probe, .remove = acp3x_audio_remove, .driver = { - .name = "acp3x_rv_i2s", + .name = "acp3x_rv_i2s_dma", .pm = &acp3x_pm_ops, },
... but for this other platform_driver you do have a .pm structure and suspend-resume implementations.
Wondering if this is a miss or a feature?
As per our design, ACP IP specific changes like ACP power on/off will be handled in ACP pci driver(parent device for DMA device and I2S controller(nothing but CPU DAI))
Where as In DMA driver during runtime suspend/resume interrupts will be disabled and enabled.
But in DAI driver there is nothing to be done in suspend and resume just returning zero so we have not added PM suspend/resume here in DAI.
So is it expected to add the suspend resumes with returning zero.Or if pm runtime is not needed in CPU DAI shall we remove the existing PM related calls in DAI.
Please suggest us.
I am far from a pm_runtime expert but I'd remove the calls to
+ pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&pdev->dev, 5000); + pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev); + pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
if you platform device does not provide any suspend/resume functions and the parent takes care of everything?
IIRC the status for the platform device would be 'unsupported' but that shouldn't prevent the parent from suspending/resuming.
A second opinion would be desirable here...