lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] i2c: prepare runtime PM support for I2C client devices
Date
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:51:00 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:38PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Enable runtime PM for the client device. If the client wants to
> > > + * participate on runtime PM it should call pm_runtime_put() in its
> > > + * probe() callback.
> > > + *
> > > + * User still needs to allow the PM runtime before it can actually
> > > + * happen.
> > > + */
> > > + pm_runtime_forbid(&client->dev);
> > > + pm_runtime_get_noresume(&client->dev);
> > > + pm_runtime_set_active(&client->dev);
> > > + pm_runtime_enable(&client->dev);
> >
> > How is this going to interact with client devices which are already
> > enabling runtime PM for themselves, and what are the advantages of doing
> > this over having the client device enable runtime PM for itself (given
> > that the client still needs an explicit put() adding)?
>
> My understanding is that you can call pm_runtime_enable() several times
> (provided that pm_runtime_disable() is called as many times). So that
> should have no effect on the current drivers that already take advantage of
> runtime PM.

That's correct.

> There is one difference though -- runtime PM is now blocked by default and
> it needs to be unblocked from the userspace per each device.
>
> For the advantages compared to each driver handling it completely
> themselves:
>
> - Few lines less as you only need to call _put().
> - It follows what is already been done for other buses, like PCI
> and AMBA .
> - The I2C core makes sure that the device is available (from bus
> point of view) when the driver ->probe() is called.
>
> > Given that it's relatively common for devices to have both I2C and SPI
> > control it seems like it'd be sensible to keep the policy common between
> > the two buses to simplify driver implementation.
>
> Yes and IMHO if I2C and SPI follows what has already been done for other
> buses it should make the driver writer's job easier as the usage is similar
> from one bus to another.

I agree here, FWIW.

Thanks!


--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-10 13:41    [W:0.081 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site