Hi,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 7:55 AM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:43:27AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:08 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:44:54PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:19 PM Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The PM Runtime docs say:
> > > > > Drivers in ->remove() callback should undo the runtime PM changes done
> > > > > in ->probe(). Usually this means calling pm_runtime_disable(),
> > > > > pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > We weren't doing that for autosuspend. Let's do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 9bede63127c6 ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Use pm_runtime autosuspend")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Hm. I know a few places in drivers where I don't do this :/
> > >
> > > It seems to be a very common problem indeed, I haven't seen any driver
> > > yet that uses pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(). We could play a game of
> > > whack-a-mole, but we'll never win. Could this be solved in the runtime
> > > PM framework instead ? pm_runtime_disable() could disable auto-suspend.
> > > If there are legitimate use cases for disabling runtime PM temporarily
> > > without disabling auto-suspend, then a new function designed
> > > specifically for remove() that would take care of cleaning everything up
> > > could be another option.
> >
> > Yeah, it would be good. It's probably not a yak I have time to shave
> > right now, though. :(
>
> I don't insist on shaving that yak right now :-) This patch is fine.
Landed in drm-misc-fixes:
26d347434829 drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Properly undo autosuspend
-Doug
