Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 9:24 AM Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 2:32 AM Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudh...@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1220,6 +1231,27 @@ static void ti_sn65dsi86_debugfs_init(struct
> > drm_bridge *bridge, struct dentry *
> > debugfs_create_file("status", 0600, debugfs, pdata, &status_fops);
> > }
> >
> > +static void ti_sn_bridge_hpd_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> > +{
> > + struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Device needs to be powered on before reading the HPD state
> > + * for reliable hpd detection in ti_sn_bridge_detect() due to
> > + * the high debounce time.
> > + */
> > +
> > + pm_runtime_get_sync(pdata->dev);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ti_sn_bridge_hpd_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> > +{
> > + struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
> > +
> > + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(pdata->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(pdata->dev);
>
> nit: you don't need the pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() here, do you? Just
> call pm_runtime_put_autosuspend().
>
> Aside from the nit, this looks reasonable to me now.
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <diand...@chromium.org>
What's the plan here? I can just remove the
`pm_runtime_mark_last_busy()` and land it if people are on board with
that (and if it works fine for Jayesh). If Jayesh wants to post a v6
to make it more legit, I can land that. I probably won't land anything
myself past Wednesday (California time) since I'm about to go offline
for 2 weeks and wouldn't want to land and bolt.
-Doug
