[PATCH 2/2 V2] OMAP3+: PM: SR: add suspend/resume handlers

[Menon, Nishanth]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:13, Felipe Balbi <balbi at ti.com> wrote:
[..]
>> > while at that, SR's IRQ is never freed on exit path, could fix it while
>> > you're already there ?
>>
>> This is not really related to this patch is it? IMHO IRQ handling is
>
> I didn't say to put it on the same patch ;-) I meant that while at that,
> you could add that simple fix before this patch ;-)
Not really that simple - it is just one part of the equation, my point
being - if we are cleaning up, we better cleanup completely on that
thread at least.

>
>> broken badly. Current support is for SmartReflex class3 - which does
>> not use the IRQ, Class2 and Class1.5 use it, but the current code
>> requires major fixes which I dont intend to support in this series.
>
> And that's exactly what I mean. IMHO it's far better to fix the mess
> before adding more stuff, otherwise it just becomes an even bigger mess,
> even more difficult to fix in the long run. We've seen that with GPIO
> and sDMA drivers _at_least_ ;-(

I tried pushing the cleanups in my series
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129933897910785&w=2

few of them did go through and I have since personally lost interest
and depending on my next free slot (not forthcoming for next few
months), I might want to retry it, but I guess there is more interest
in turning things into regulators than add new code.

I am ok if folks want to drop this patch - like previously, things
tend to get forgotten..

>
>> >> @@ -998,10 +1020,75 @@ static int __devexit omap_sr_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> >>       return 0;
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> +static int omap_sr_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     struct omap_sr_data *pdata;
>> >> +     struct omap_sr *sr_info;
>> >> +
>> >> +     pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
>> >
>> > I'm not sure you need to use platform data here...
>> see below
>> >
>> >> +     if (!pdata) {
>> >> +             dev_err(dev, "%s: platform data missing\n", __func__);
>> >> +             return -EINVAL;
>> >> +     }
>> >> +
>> >> +     sr_info = _sr_lookup(pdata->voltdm);
>> >
>> > this field is held on struct omap_sr. Can't you:
>> >
>> >        struct omap_sr  *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> >
>> > ?? I see that a platform_set_drvdata() is missing from the driver, but
>> > maybe you should add that instead of accessing platform_data.
>> omap_sr_data is added in arch/arm/mach-omap2/sr_device.c
>>
>> With the current handling - it needs sr_data from which sr_info is
>> pulled out. in the current implementation, sr_data contains the voltdm
>> pointer from which sr_info is pulled out.
>
> but sr_info is allocated on probe() isn't it ? if you add
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, sr_info) on probe, you won't need sr_data to
> fetch sr_info, all you need is to use dev_get_drvdata(dev). Am I missing
> something ?
sr_info - I am not debating that this is not possible - I am just
explaining how it is being done now. I just dont have the bandwidth to
kill all evils in smartreflex driver. :(

Regards,
Nishanth Menon