Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "pm_children_suspend".
Did you mean:
pm_children_suspended
2016 May 27
2
[PATCH 1/9] drm/nouveau: Don't leak runtime pm ref on driver unload
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:03:27PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> nouveau_drm_load() calls pm_runtime_put() if nouveau_runtime_pm != 0,
> but nouveau_drm_unload() calls pm_runtime_get_sync() unconditionally.
> We therefore leak a runtime pm ref whenever nouveau is loaded with
> runpm=0 and then unloaded. The GPU will subsequently never runtime
> suspend even if nouveau is loaded again
2016 May 29
0
[PATCH 1/9] drm/nouveau: Don't leak runtime pm ref on driver unload
...er) in D0 but the runtime status is allowed to change
to "suspended". So it'll appear to the kernel as if it was suspended
but in reality it stays in D0.
Once runtime pm for PCIe ports gets merged, the root port above the
GPU will indeed go to D3 in such a situation because the check
pm_children_suspended() (called from rpm_check_suspend_allowed())
returns true.
I'm not sure if this is desirable or not. If we keep unbound devices
in D0, should we allow ports above them to go to D3?
In any case, when nouveau is loaded again, local_pci_probe() will
call pm_runtime_get_sync(), which will implic...
2016 May 30
2
[PATCH 1/9] drm/nouveau: Don't leak runtime pm ref on driver unload
...us is allowed to change
> to "suspended". So it'll appear to the kernel as if it was suspended
> but in reality it stays in D0.
>
> Once runtime pm for PCIe ports gets merged, the root port above the
> GPU will indeed go to D3 in such a situation because the check
> pm_children_suspended() (called from rpm_check_suspend_allowed())
> returns true.
>
> I'm not sure if this is desirable or not. If we keep unbound devices
> in D0, should we allow ports above them to go to D3?
Maybe Rafael (linux-pm / linux-pci) can answer this question better?
The comments in local_...