lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRE: [PATCH] i2c/tegra: I2C driver uses the suspend_noirq/resume_noirq
    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@nvidia.com> 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@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-08-30 18:27    [W:0.029 / U:2.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site