[PATCH] i2c: exynos5: Properly use the "noirq" variants of suspend/resume

[Doug Anderson]

Kevin,

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman at linaro.org> wrote:
>> So I guess in this case the truly correct way to handle it is:
>>
>> 1. i2c controller should have Runtime PM even though (as per the code
>> now) there's nothing you can do to it to save power under normal
>> circumstances.  So the runtime "suspend" code would be a no-op.
>>
>> 2. When the i2c controller is told to runtime resume, it should
>> double-check if a full SoC poweroff has happened since the last time
>> it checked.  In this case it should reinit its hardware.
>>
>> 3. If the i2c controller gets a full "resume" callback then it should
>> also reinit the hardware just so it's not sitting in a half-configured
>> state until the first peripheral uses it.
>>
>> If later someone finds a way to power gate the i2c controller when no
>> active transfers are going (and we actually save non-trivial power
>> doing this) then we've got a nice place to put that code.
>>
>> NOTE: Unless we can actually save power by power gating the i2c
>> peripheral when there are no active transfers, we would also just have
>> the i2c_xfer() init the hardware if needed.  Maybe that's kinda gross,
>> though.
>
> Yes, this is how we manage the i2c controller on OMAP.
>
> Essentially, between every xfer, the hw is disabled and can potentially
> lose context, so eveery xfer requires a hw init.  We use the runtime PM
> "autosuspend" feature so that it stays alive for X milliseconds so
> bursty i2c xfers are not punished.
>
> Have a look at drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c.
>
> You'll notice there are not callbacks for system suspend/resume, it's
> only doing runtime PM.

OK, cool!  That might be a bit too aggressive of a change for what I
can take on right now.  I've filed http://crbug.com/388007 to see if
Samsung can take a look at this.

-Doug