Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On 18/03/2024 14:49, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:34:07 + > Steven Price wrote: > >> On 18/03/2024 14:18, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:49:52 + >>> Steven Price wrote: >>> On 18/03/2024 13:08, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:34:07 + Steven Price wrote: > On 18/03/2024 14:18, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:49:52 + > > Steven Price wrote: > > > >> On 18/03/2024 13:08, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:31:05 + > >>> Steven Price wrote: > >>>

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On 18/03/2024 14:18, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:49:52 + > Steven Price wrote: > >> On 18/03/2024 13:08, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:31:05 + >>> Steven Price wrote: >>> On 18/03/2024 08:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Putting a hard

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:49:52 + Steven Price wrote: > On 18/03/2024 13:08, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:31:05 + > > Steven Price wrote: > > > >> On 18/03/2024 08:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On 18/03/2024 1:49 pm, Steven Price wrote: On 18/03/2024 13:08, Boris Brezillon wrote: On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:31:05 + Steven Price wrote: On 18/03/2024 08:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a circular dependency issue, and it's

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On 18/03/2024 13:08, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:31:05 + > Steven Price wrote: > >> On 18/03/2024 08:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a >>> circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either.

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:31:05 + Steven Price wrote: > On 18/03/2024 08:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a > > circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In > > order to support this use case, we forcibly

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:18:53 + Robin Murphy wrote: > On 18/03/2024 8:58 am, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a > > circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In > > order to support this use case, we forcibly

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On 18/03/2024 8:58 am, Boris Brezillon wrote: Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and suspend at unplug time. Reported-by:

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On 18/03/2024 08:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a > circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In > order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and > suspend at unplug time. > >

Re: [PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 09:58:55AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a > circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In > order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and > suspend at unplug

[PATCH] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and suspend at unplug time. Reported-by: kernel test robot Closes: