Hi Laurent, On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 03:20:55PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 03:15:54PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:30:09PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:23:53PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 08:12:59PM +0900, Paul Elder wrote: > > > > > Switch to using runtime PM for power management. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > - replace manual tracking of power status with pm_runtime_get_if_in_use > > > > > - power on the sensor before reading the checking the chip id > > > > > - add dependency on PM to Kconfig > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig | 1 + > > > > > drivers/media/i2c/ov5640.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig b/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig > > > > > index e7194c1be4d2..97c3611d9304 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig > > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig > > > > > @@ -1025,6 +1025,7 @@ config VIDEO_OV5640 > > > > > tristate "OmniVision OV5640 sensor support" > > > > > depends on OF > > > > > depends on GPIOLIB && VIDEO_V4L2 && I2C > > > > > + depends on PM > > > > > > > > I think this is not needed as the sensor is powered on explicitly in probe. > > > > > > > > You should similarly power it off explicitly in remove, set the runtime PM > > > > status suspended and disable runtime PM. See e.g. imx319 driver for an > > > > example. It doesn't have resume callback but that doesn't really matter --- > > > > it's just ACPI-only. > > > > > > Do we want to continue supporting !PM ? Does it have any real use case > > > when dealing with camera sensors ? > > > > Probably not much. > > > > The changes I proposed are not eve related on runtime PM. Hence the > > question here is whether there should be a dependency to CONFIG_PM or not, > > and as there's no technical reason to have it, it should be omitted. > > But if there's no real use case for !PM, wouldn't we be better off > depending on PM and simplifying the probe functions instead ? What would change in the probe function if runtime PM was required by the driver? -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
