From 02b26774afebb2d62695ba3230319d70d8c6cc2d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kevin Hilman Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: PM / Runtime: Allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks. This enables interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected interrupts to be disabled. This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode. However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which is what this patch aims to do. Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled context. Reported-by: Colin Cross Tested-by: Nishanth Menon Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 10 ++++++++-- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'drivers') diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c index 8dc247c..acb3f83 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c @@ -226,11 +226,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev, int rpmflags) callback = NULL; if (callback) { - spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock); + if (dev->power.irq_safe) + spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock); + else + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock); callback(dev); - spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock); + if (dev->power.irq_safe) + spin_lock(&dev->power.lock); + else + spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock); } dev->power.idle_notification = false; -- cgit v1.1