Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

2024-03-25 Thread Boris Brezillon
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:31:17 +0100 Boris Brezillon wrote: > Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a > circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In > order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and > suspend at unplug time.

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

2024-03-18 Thread AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
Il 18/03/24 16:31, Boris Brezillon ha scritto: Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and suspend at unplug time. v2: - Drop the #if

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

2024-03-18 Thread Steven Price
On 18/03/2024 15:31, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a > circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In > order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and > suspend at unplug time. > > v2: > - Dro

[PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Fix the CONFIG_PM=n case

2024-03-18 Thread Boris Brezillon
Putting a hard dependency on CONFIG_PM is not possible because of a circular dependency issue, and it's actually not desirable either. In order to support this use case, we forcibly resume at init time, and suspend at unplug time. v2: - Drop the #ifdef CONFIG_PM section around panthor_pm_ops's def