Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:40 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:35 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kalyan Thota <kalyan_t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter > > > before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it > > > after calling the ->resume() callback" > > > > > > DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When > > > suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the > > > devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is > > > already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called > > > and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not > > > entering into XO shutdown. > > > > > > Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep. > > > > > > Changes in v1: > > > - Remove unnecessary checks in the function > > > _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark). > > > > I'm wondering what happened with my feedback on v1, AKA: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=VxzEV40g+ieuEN+7o=34+wM8MHO8o7T5zA1Yosx7SVWg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Maybe you didn't see it? ...or if you or Rob think I'm way off base > > (always possible) then please tell me so. > > > > At least w/ the current patch, disable_dpu should not be called for > screen-off (although I'd hope if all the screens are off the device > would suspend). OK, that's good. > But I won't claim to be a pm expert.. so not really > sure if this is the best approach or not. I don't think our > arrangement of sub-devices under a parent is completely abnormal, so > it does feel like there should be a simpler solution.. I think the other arguments about asymmetry are still valid and I've fixed bugs around this type of thing in the past. For instance, see commit f7ccbed656f7 ("drm/rockchip: Suspend DP late"). -Doug
