Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-65434-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <6e20e772-e50e-4600-8325-1878badbbdc8@leemhuis.info>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:34:29 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] `lis3lv02d_i2c_suspend()` causes `unbalanced
 disables for regulator-dummy` and `Failed to disable Vdd_IO: -EIO`
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=C3=A1r?= <pali@kernel.org>,
 Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, regressions@lists.linux.dev
References: <5fc6da74-af0a-4aac-b4d5-a000b39a63a5@molgen.mpg.de>
 <ZcTmdg2qTq0bP0ul@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Reply-To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <ZcTmdg2qTq0bP0ul@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 08.02.24 15:34, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 12:38:04PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> 
>> Testing commit 2f189493ae32 (i2c: i801: Add lis3lv02d for Dell XPS 15 7590)
>> [1], it’s very likely this commit, it turns out, that Linux logs the warning
>> below during ACPI S3 suspend:

Mark, many thx for your reply:

> The driver is just buggy here AFAICT,

/me reads that as "buggy even before 2f189493ae32, that commit just
exposed the problem"

> it's powering off the device in
> both runtime suspend and runtime resume so if the device is runtime
> suspended when system suspend happens then it'll power off the device
> again.  The runtime suspend and system suspend need to talk to each
> other here.

Well, that was 6 days ago and nothing further happened. Makes me wonder:
Who will look into this? And when? If not any time soon I guess we
sooner or later should consider revert this. Yes, the problem is "just"
a warning, but well, it's not "just" a warning for people using
panic_on_warn...

Paul, just to be sure: I assume reverting 2f189493ae32 fixes the problem?

Ciao, Thorsten