On 26-11-20, 09:52, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > @@ -154,7 +163,12 @@ int sdw_master_device_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, > > > struct device *parent, > > > > bus->dev = &md->dev; > > > > bus->md = md; > > > > > > > > + pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&bus->md->dev, > > > SDW_MASTER_SUSPEND_DELAY_MS); > > > > + pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&bus->md->dev); > > > > + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&bus->md->dev); > > > > + pm_runtime_set_active(&bus->md->dev); > > > > pm_runtime_enable(&bus->md->dev); > > > > + pm_runtime_idle(&bus->md->dev); > > > > > > I understand that this needs to be done somewhere but is the core the > > > right > > > place. In intel case it maybe a dummy device but other controllers are > > > real > > > devices and may not support pm. > > > > > > I think better idea would be to do this in respective driver.. that way it > > > would be an opt-in for device supporting pm. > > > > Should it be put in the same place as pm_runtime_enable? > > IMHO, pm_runtime_enable is in the core already and it seems to be harmless > > for devices which don't support pm. And pm can still be optional on md's > > parent device. > > For intel case yes, but world is not only intel, there are md which do > not have a parent like sof. they are real sdw controller devices
Sorry I confused md with real master device ;-) I guess this patch should be okay then.. As the real parent will control. Thanks -- ~Vinod
