[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140215234748.GA26494@saruman.home>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:47:48 -0600
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>,
Gilad Avidov <gavidov@...eaurora.org>,
Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
Kenneth Heitke <kheitke@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:05:33PM -0600, Josh Cartwright wrote:
[ snip ]
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> +static int spmi_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct spmi_device *sdev = to_spmi_device(dev);
> + int err;
> +
> + err = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + return spmi_command_sleep(sdev);
shouldn't this too calls be swapped ? I mean, some pm_runtime
implementations could be gating clocks at the driver's
->runtime_suspend() callback.
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists