On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:13 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:44 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think that might not help if something fails to probe due to (for > > example) a missing dependency, so !priv->kms is probably a better > > check to cover both cases. But the 2nd patch makes a good point, that > > the suspend/resume path probably needs the same treatment > > Thanks for the feedback. > I will follow the same approach for fixing the suspend/resume path then. > > Let me test it and then I will re-submit Dmitry's patch and the one > for suspend/resume as part of a patch series. Thanks, BR, -R
