From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751845Ab1ITQvf (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:51:35 -0400 Received: from hqemgate04.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.35]:15810 "EHLO hqemgate04.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751287Ab1ITQvc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:51:32 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp05.nvidia.com on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:51:11 -0700 From: Stephen Warren To: Ben Dooks , Arnd Bergmann CC: Mark Brown , Dilan Lee , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Colin Cross Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:51:08 -0700 Subject: RE: [PATCH] i2c/tegra: I2C driver uses the suspend_noirq/resume_noirq Thread-Topic: [PATCH] i2c/tegra: I2C driver uses the suspend_noirq/resume_noirq Thread-Index: AcxipYooKUwOWBpMSfeE5QkubxGA9gEi65QgBCD9ZbA= Message-ID: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04B73215C9@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> References: <1312586102-27907-1-git-send-email-swarren@nvidia.com> <20110806084805.GA18098@sirena.org.uk> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04AEA24CC8@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04AEA24D09@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <1313109916.19990.28.camel@finisterre.wolfsonmicro.main> <20110812031433.GE10218@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04B24A3CA6@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04B3279D4F@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04B3279D4F@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:25 AM: > Ben, Arnd, > > Could you please ack/nack the patch at the start of this thread for Colin; > see below. Ben, can you please comment on the acceptability of this patch? Or Arnd, did Mark's most recent explanation of the situation provide enough context for you to ack/nak it? Thanks. > Thanks. > > Colin Cross wrote at Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:34 PM: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > Mark Brown wrote at Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:15 PM: > > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:59:27PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote: > > >> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Mark Brown > > >> > > >> > > For example with ASoC we'd sort all the components before the ASoC card > > >> > > without regard for their bus dependencies or any other dependencies they > > >> > > have (eg, their regulators). Since the ASoC card is a platform device > > >> > > it's likely to have registered early with no regard for where the buses > > >> > > the card needs are registered. I'd expect there's a reasonable chance > > >> > > it'll actually make things worse in the short term. > > >> > > >> > You can't just move everything after the card, you have to move > > >> > everything after the last device that was probed, and it only works if > > >> > nothing depends on any of the devices that are moved. > > >> > > >> Sorry, I said that the wrong way round due to trying to reply quickly - > > >> the card would be the thing that moves since that's the thing that > > >> actually does the suspend but we've *no* idea which device we need to > > >> move it after.  Since all the function does is a direct move after or > > >> before a single device all we can do is pick one and pray that it's the > > >> right device. > > > > > > Colin, > > > > > > This thread seems to have died down; how should we make progress? > > > > > > It sounds like the suspend_irq solution is the current de-facto standard; > > > not optimal, but all we really have right now and already in use. I could > > > certainly see avoiding this solution if it was the first time it was > > > employed, but re-using it seems reasonable to me? > > > > > > Alternatively, are you attending either Linux Plumbers Conference or the > > > Kernel Summit? Mark implied this topic might well come up for discussion > > > there. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make LPC due to a conflict. > > I don't think I'll be able to make it. > > > > > (and you'd mentioned having the subsystem maintainers weigh in on this; > > > which sub-system; IRQ, power, I2C, ...?) > > > > If Ben says its OK, its fine with me. Or maybe Arnd wants to weigh in? -- nvpublic