[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04B24A3CA6@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:28:29 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>
CC: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, Dilan Lee <dilee@...dia.com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] i2c/tegra: I2C driver uses the
suspend_noirq/resume_noirq
Mark Brown wrote at Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:15 PM:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:59:27PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Mark Brown
>
> > > For example with ASoC we'd sort all the components before the ASoC card
> > > without regard for their bus dependencies or any other dependencies they
> > > have (eg, their regulators). Since the ASoC card is a platform device
> > > it's likely to have registered early with no regard for where the buses
> > > the card needs are registered. I'd expect there's a reasonable chance
> > > it'll actually make things worse in the short term.
>
> > You can't just move everything after the card, you have to move
> > everything after the last device that was probed, and it only works if
> > nothing depends on any of the devices that are moved.
>
> Sorry, I said that the wrong way round due to trying to reply quickly -
> the card would be the thing that moves since that's the thing that
> actually does the suspend but we've *no* idea which device we need to
> move it after. Since all the function does is a direct move after or
> before a single device all we can do is pick one and pray that it's the
> right device.
Colin,
This thread seems to have died down; how should we make progress?
It sounds like the suspend_irq solution is the current de-facto standard;
not optimal, but all we really have right now and already in use. I could
certainly see avoiding this solution if it was the first time it was
employed, but re-using it seems reasonable to me?
Alternatively, are you attending either Linux Plumbers Conference or the
Kernel Summit? Mark implied this topic might well come up for discussion
there. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make LPC due to a conflict.
(and you'd mentioned having the subsystem maintainers weigh in on this;
which sub-system; IRQ, power, I2C, ...?)
Thanks!
--
nvpublic
--
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