> -----Original Message----- > From: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@xxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 8:55 PM > To: jackson.lee <jackson.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Nicolas Dufresne > <nicolas.dufresne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx; > sebastian.fricke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx; Nas Chung <nas.chung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; lafley.kim > <lafley.kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; b-brnich@xxxxxx; Luthra, Jai <j-luthra@xxxxxx>; > Vibhore <vibhore@xxxxxx>; Dhruva Gole <d-gole@xxxxxx>; Aradhya <a- > bhatia1@xxxxxx>; Raghavendra, Vignesh <vigneshr@xxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 2/4] media: chips-media: wave5: Support runtime > suspend/resume > > Hi Jackson, > > On 21/06/24 06:00, jackson.lee wrote: > > Hi Nicolas / Devarsh > > > > > > There are lots of mail thread in the loop, I have confusion. > > I'd like to make check-up list for the "Support runtime suspend/resume" > patch. > > > > 1. Profiling resume latency > > 2. after that, adjusting the time. > > > > Beyond above two points, > Hi Brandon According to today meeting, should we take care of this ? > 3. I think this patchset also breaks hrtimer polling and so the VPU operation > on AM62A which completely relies on polling, you can test with removing the > interrupt property from your dts file before/after this patch-set. With the > polling it needs to be taken care that polling is started only after device > is on power-on state and is stopped before device gets suspended. > Hi Devarsh I have already sent some changes to fix this in the previous e-mail. Please refer to the e-mail. > 4. There is some discussion going on between me and Nicholas on whether > delayed suspend is really required after last instance close or not. My > thought was that we should suspend immediately after last instance close, but > Nicolas mentioned some concerns w.r.t use-cases such as gapless playback so I > am following up with him. > > Regards > Devarsh
