Hi Doug,
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 2:37 AM Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:34 AM Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:52 AM Doug Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:05 AM Pin-yen Lin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:34 AM Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:52 AM Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:05 AM Pin-yen Lin wrote:
> > >
> > > The ps8640 bridge seems to expect everything to be power cycled at the
> > > disable
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:52 AM Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:05 AM Pin-yen Lin wrote:
> >
> > The ps8640 bridge seems to expect everything to be power cycled at the
> > disable process, but sometimes ps8640_aux_transfer() holds the runtime
> > PM reference and
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:05 AM Pin-yen Lin wrote:
>
> The ps8640 bridge seems to expect everything to be power cycled at the
> disable process, but sometimes ps8640_aux_transfer() holds the runtime
> PM reference and prevents the bridge from suspend.
>
> Prevent that by introducing a mutex
The ps8640 bridge seems to expect everything to be power cycled at the
disable process, but sometimes ps8640_aux_transfer() holds the runtime
PM reference and prevents the bridge from suspend.
Prevent that by introducing a mutex lock between ps8640_aux_transfer()
and .post_disable() to make sure
