[PATCH] i2c/tegra: I2C driver uses the suspend_noirq/resume_noirq
swarren at nvidia.com
Tue Sep 20 12:51:08 EDT 2011
Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:25 AM:
> Ben, Arnd,
> Could you please ack/nack the patch at the start of this thread for Colin;
> see below.
Ben, can you please comment on the acceptability of this patch?
Or Arnd, did Mark's most recent explanation of the situation provide enough
context for you to ack/nak it?
> Colin Cross wrote at Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:34 PM:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > I don't think I'll be able to make it.
> > > (and you'd mentioned having the subsystem maintainers weigh in on this;
> > > which sub-system; IRQ, power, I2C, ...?)
> > If Ben says its OK, its fine with me. Or maybe Arnd wants to weigh in?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel