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

[Kevin Hilman]

Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> writes:

> 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.

Sure.  While I think moving to runtime PM is the right thing to do, that
alone shouldn't block this patch.

Kevin