From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in>
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
khilman@ti.com, magnus.damm@gmail.com
Subject: Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:28:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201102181928.05911.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinsPqFcodH0w7LQeFEY+amodNH4CneRCRhhbKaz@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday, February 18, 2011, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 20:55, Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in> wrote:
> > This will solve the platform vs AMBA bus, but shouldn't we really be
> > aiming for consistent behaviour between these and the other busses such
> > as I2C and SPI, which are also usually commonly used on the same
> > platforms and are using GENERIC_PM_OPS?
> >
> > Should we be auditing all platform drivers and then switch platform to
> > the GENERIC_PM_OPS?
> >
> > Or should the two points (1) and (2) be not handled in the bus at all
> > and be left to individual drivers (in which case we should audit i2c and
> > spi and change GENERIC_PM_OPS)?
>
> How about something like the below? If we have something like this, we
> can just switch platform to GENERIC_PM_OPS and add the
> pm_runtime_want_interaction() (or something better named) call to the
> i2c and spi drivers using runtime PM.
Why don't we make platform_bus_type behave along the lines of generic ops
instead?
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-18 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-16 18:26 Rabin Vincent
2010-12-17 0:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-17 15:25 ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-18 2:48 ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-18 15:05 ` Alan Stern
2011-02-18 18:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2011-02-18 19:25 ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-18 20:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-18 20:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-18 22:16 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-19 7:24 ` Rabin Vincent
2011-02-19 9:54 ` Linus Walleij
2011-02-19 10:00 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-19 10:16 ` Linus Walleij
2010-12-17 12:54 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-17 13:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-17 13:34 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-17 13:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-17 14:24 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-17 23:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-18 1:04 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-18 12:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-18 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-18 14:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-20 15:00 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-20 21:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-21 23:51 ` Mark Brown
2010-12-22 0:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201102181928.05911.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=rabin@rab.in \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome