From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] i2c: prepare runtime PM support for I2C client devices
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:40:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130909154028.GP29403@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1378733679-19500-2-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 962 bytes --]
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)?
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.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] i2c: prepare runtime PM support for I2C client devices
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:40:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130909154028.GP29403@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1378733679-19500-2-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
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)?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130909/5e302705/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-09 15:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-09 13:34 [PATCH RESEND 0/2] runtime PM support for I2C clients Mika Westerberg
2013-09-09 13:34 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-09-09 13:34 ` [PATCH RESEND 1/2] i2c: prepare runtime PM support for I2C client devices Mika Westerberg
2013-09-09 13:34 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-09-09 15:40 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2013-09-09 15:40 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-10 7:51 ` Mika Westerberg
[not found] ` <20130910075100.GK7393-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-10 11:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 11:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 11:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 12:27 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-10 12:27 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20130910122754.GK29403-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-10 14:26 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-09-10 14:26 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-09-10 16:13 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-10 16:13 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20130910161321.GM29403-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-10 20:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 20:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 20:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
[not found] ` <3397524.g9aUWuArnm-sKB8Sp2ER+y1GS7QM15AGw@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-10 21:35 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-10 21:35 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-10 21:35 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20130910213522.GG29403-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-10 22:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 22:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-10 22:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-11 1:01 ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-11 1:01 ` Aaron Lu
2013-09-11 9:55 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-11 9:55 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20130911095552.GI29403-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-11 11:05 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-09-11 11:05 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-09-11 11:14 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-11 11:14 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-11 11:24 ` Mika Westerberg
[not found] ` <522FC0DC.9030708-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-12 21:07 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-09-12 21:07 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-09-12 21:07 ` Kevin Hilman
[not found] ` <87eh8trbob.fsf-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-12 22:01 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-12 22:01 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-12 22:01 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-09 13:34 ` [PATCH RESEND 2/2] i2c: attach/detach I2C client device to the ACPI power domain Mika Westerberg
2013-09-09 13:34 ` Mika Westerberg
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=20130909154028.GP29403@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.