From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:25:07 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.37-rc6+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in>, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
        linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <AANLkTinyDE3OxKup_aqsN8HJH_r5LcwkP17OtuMRpACx@mail.gmail.com> <20101217125427.GA29640@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20101217125427.GA29640@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201012171425.07775.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1198
Lines: 29

On Friday, December 17, 2010, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:56:57PM +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> 
> > There seem to be some differences between the generic ops and the i2c
> > and platform busses' implementations of the interaction between runtime
> > PM and system sleep:
> 
> >   (1) The platform bus does not implement the
> >       don't-call-pm->suspend()-if pm_runtime_suspended()-returns-true
> >       functionality implemented by the generic ops and i2c.
> 
> This is platform lagging behind I2C in implementation - both originally 
> did what platform does and then I2C was updated and platform wasn't.
> 
> It'd be really good if this could all be factored out into the PM core,
> we're going to have to do the same thing for at least SPI as well and
> possibly some other buses :/

So how exactly the PM core is supposed to include those things?

There certainly are other buses that don't want to do them.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/