On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:50:08 +0200
> Johan Hovold escreveu:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 04:51:21PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
> > > 1. despite its name, this is actually a PM runtime resume call,
> > >but s
29.04.2021 13:18, Mauro Carvalho Chehab пишет:
>> This is perfectly alright. Take a look at ov7740_remove() for example:
>>
>> pm_runtime_get_sync(&client->dev);
>> pm_runtime_disable(&client->dev);
>> pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev);
>> pm_runtime_put_noidle(&client->dev
Em Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:50:08 +0200
Johan Hovold escreveu:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 04:51:21PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > 1. despite its name, this is actually a PM runtime resume call,
> >but some developers didn't seem to realize that, as I got this
> >pattern on some driv
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 04:51:21PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> During the review of the patches from unm.edu, one of the patterns
> I noticed is the amount of patches trying to fix pm_runtime_get_sync()
> calls.
>
> After analyzing the feedback from version 1 of this series, I noticed
>
During the review of the patches from unm.edu, one of the patterns
I noticed is the amount of patches trying to fix pm_runtime_get_sync()
calls.
After analyzing the feedback from version 1 of this series, I noticed
a few other weird behaviors at the PM runtime resume code. So, this
series start ad
