[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8736a8228g.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:22:23 +0200
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
To: Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...i.sm>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: dwc3: enable runtime PM for drd role switch / extcon
Hi,
Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...i.sm> writes:
>> (for commit logs, please break your lines at 72 characters)
>>
>> Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...i.sm> writes:
>>
>>> Note: runtime PM currently needs to be enabled ("auto") manually via
>>> sysfs as its power/control is set to "on" by the driver.
>>
>> Right, that's on purpose
>>
>>> When runtime PM enabled, dwc3 currently doesn't resume when a cable is
>>> connected. It only suspends after a cable is disconnected.
>>>
>>> When using an extcon driver (for a different chip on the board), dwc3
>>> can register a hook for that. (Still undocumented -> TODO?).
>>>
>>> Make sure, dwc3 is resumed when "set_mode" is being called by drd.
>>>
>>> this is only a question about what's missing to properly keep runtime
>>> PM enabled for dwc3 and if my change makes any sense at all. It seems
>>> to work fine for me...
>>>
>>> I'm glad about any hints on how to keep runtime PM enabled (at least when
>>> having an extcon hook set up).
>>
>> You need to remember that what you write here is going to be placed in
>> the commit log and will survive forever in the history of the
>> project. Can you be a little bit more technical? For example, why did
>> you change the asynchronous pm_runtime_put() to synchronous versions?
>> Why was that necessary?>
>> Also, you're missing your Signed-off-by line. Please, read the
>> documentation about how to write patches.
>
> I don't sign off on this change. It merely servers as a basis for the
> question I have: How to properly have continuous runtime PM in dwc3 (at
> least when having an extcon device connected) and is there any specific
> reason why this isn't yet implemented?
Probably because nobody has spent the time to do it. If you have HW and
time to implement this, by all means, go ahead.
Just make sure to keep the current functionality: pm runtime should only
be enabled by userspace.
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists