RE: [PATCH] i2c/tegra: I2C driver uses thesuspend_noirq/resume_noirq

[Stephen Warren]

Ben, Arnd,

Could you please ack/nack the patch at the start of this thread for Colin;
see below.

Thanks.

Colin Cross wrote at Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:34 PM:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/