ti-sn65dsi86 bridge is enumerated as a runtime device.
Adding sleep ops to force runtime_suspend when PM suspend is
requested on the device.
This change needs to be taken along with the series:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11494309/
Signed-off-by: Harigovindan P <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
index 6ad688b320ae..2eef755b2917 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
@@ -159,6 +159,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused ti_sn_bridge_suspend(struct device *dev)
static const struct dev_pm_ops ti_sn_bridge_pm_ops = {
SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(ti_sn_bridge_suspend, ti_sn_bridge_resume, NULL)
+ SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
+ pm_runtime_force_resume)
};
static int status_show(struct seq_file *s, void *data)
--
2.25.1
The subject is not specific enough. I'd expect it to be something like:
drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: ensure bridge suspend happens during PM sleep
Quoting Harigovindan P (2020-04-22 02:04:43)
> ti-sn65dsi86 bridge is enumerated as a runtime device.
>
> Adding sleep ops to force runtime_suspend when PM suspend is
> requested on the device.
>
> This change needs to be taken along with the series:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11494309/
Why? It doesn't seem like it should be required to go along with a qcom
specific driver patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harigovindan P <[email protected]>
> ---
Besides the subject:
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Hi,
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:26 PM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The subject is not specific enough. I'd expect it to be something like:
>
> drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: ensure bridge suspend happens during PM sleep
>
> Quoting Harigovindan P (2020-04-22 02:04:43)
> > ti-sn65dsi86 bridge is enumerated as a runtime device.
> >
> > Adding sleep ops to force runtime_suspend when PM suspend is
> > requested on the device.
> >
> > This change needs to be taken along with the series:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11494309/
>
> Why? It doesn't seem like it should be required to go along with a qcom
> specific driver patch.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harigovindan P <[email protected]>
> > ---
>
> Besides the subject:
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Are you planning to re-post with the changes Stephen requested? Maybe
CC Sam too who was nice enough to help land some of my recent changes
to this driver.
-Doug