[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <q3wod6cg5p26dedukvzns6m3npqt6q3crcr7c6rf7o6r6csosd@a4uo32azmfxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 22:28:37 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Zoie Lin <zoie.lin@...iatek.com>
Cc: Qii Wang <qii.wang@...iatek.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, teddy.chen@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [v3,0/1] i2c: mediatek: add runtime PM operations and bus
regulator control
Hi Zoie,
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 10:32:33PM +0800, Zoie Lin wrote:
> This series is based on linux-next, tag: next-20241220
>
> Changes in v3:
>
> This patch removes the autosuspend functionality from the runtime
> PM operations in the I2C driver. These changes have been tested on
> the target platform and confirmed to work correctly without the
> autosuspend functionality.
Was the autosuspend delay not necessary, then?
Is there a specific reason you included it in the first place?
BTW, next time, please use the format [PATCH v3 0/1] for patches.
Also, for just one patch, a cover letter isn't really necessary.
You can include the changelog after the '---' section of the patch.
was, then, the autosuspend delay not necessary?
Andi
> Additionally, the patch resumes the I2C bus in mtk_i2c_resume_noirq()
> to fix the unbalanced disable issue.
>
>
> Zoie Lin (1):
> i2c: mediatek: add runtime PM operations and bus regulator control
>
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.45.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists