Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756995AbaFTVsH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:48:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:44966 "EHLO mail-pd0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754357AbaFTVsF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:48:05 -0400 From: Kevin Hilman To: Doug Anderson Cc: Wolfram Sang , Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , Javier Martinez Canillas , naveen krishna , Jingoo Han , Jean Delvare , Simon Glass , Paul Gortmaker , standby24x7@gmail.com, Sachin Kamat , "linux-i2c\@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org" , linux-samsung-soc , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: exynos5: Properly use the "noirq" variants of suspend/resume References: <1403155273-1057-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <7h8uosyc3k.fsf@paris.lan> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:48:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Doug Anderson's message of "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:43:48 -0700") Message-ID: <7hwqcbs166.fsf@paris.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Doug, Doug Anderson writes: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Doug Anderson writes: >> >>> The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the >>> "noirq" variants. However during review feedback it was moved to >>> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no >>> longer actually "noirq" (despite functions named >>> exynos5_i2c_suspend_noirq and exynos5_i2c_resume_noirq). >>> >>> i2c controllers that might have wakeup sources on them seem to need to >>> resume at noirq time so that the individual drivers can actually read >>> the i2c bus to handle their wakeup. >> >> I suspect usage of the noirq variants pre-dates the existence of the >> late/early callbacks in the PM core, but based on the description above, >> I suspect what you actually want is the late/early callbacks. > > I think it actually really needs noirq. ;) Yes, it appears it does. Objection withdrawn. I just wanted to be sure because since the introduction of late/early, the need for noirq should be pretty rare, but there certainly are needs. In this case though, the need for it has more to do with the lack of a way for us to describe non parent-child device dependencies than whether or not IRQs are enabled or not. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/