[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102181928.05911.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:28:05 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>
Cc: stern@...land.harvard.edu, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
khilman@...com, magnus.damm@...il.com
Subject: Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep
On Friday, February 18, 2011, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 20:55, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in> wrote:
> > This will solve the platform vs AMBA bus, but shouldn't we really be
> > aiming for consistent behaviour between these and the other busses such
> > as I2C and SPI, which are also usually commonly used on the same
> > platforms and are using GENERIC_PM_OPS?
> >
> > Should we be auditing all platform drivers and then switch platform to
> > the GENERIC_PM_OPS?
> >
> > Or should the two points (1) and (2) be not handled in the bus at all
> > and be left to individual drivers (in which case we should audit i2c and
> > spi and change GENERIC_PM_OPS)?
>
> How about something like the below? If we have something like this, we
> can just switch platform to GENERIC_PM_OPS and add the
> pm_runtime_want_interaction() (or something better named) call to the
> i2c and spi drivers using runtime PM.
Why don't we make platform_bus_type behave along the lines of generic ops
instead?
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists