Re: [PATCH] i2c-mux-pca954x: Disable mux after 200ms timeout

[Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2080 bytes --]


> I had looked a bit in that direction, but I think there's currently
> no way for a driver to say "I won't be needing the bus for a while".
> Something like that would be critical for such a pm system to work.

Yes. I wasn't sure if something already existed.

> In any case, it doesn't sound like something I can sell - it's
> understandable for my employer that I spent an extra hour or so to
> clean up and submit the code to upstream, but this appears to go
> into a different class of rework.
>
> So where do you want to go with this? Should I rework the patch to
> make the timeout optional, or should I simply forget about
> integrating at all?

I understand your constraints, yet from a maintenance perspective I
shouldn't have such code in a driver. So, out-of-tree that is for now.

> In fact, on the customer's board, the pca mux is powered by a supply
> so the whole mux can be powered-down too, for which I also needed to
> patch the pca driver to reset its state when the powersupply
> reported that it was going down. I think that particular patch isn't
> of much use to the community though, or is it?

If it uses standard pm callbacks, I'd think this makes sense.

> Most hardware can control power and clocks to the I2C controller,
> which would indeed account for some power savings. But again, that
> would require drivers to provide estimations as to when they will
> need the bus. And it would require much more information on the bus
> controller too, though I suspect that to be the easier part.

There are drivers gating off the clocks simply after every transfer. I
don't know your HW details and workloads, but I wondered if you can
unconditionally switch off the core, do some pinmuxing...

> > Anyway, thanks for letting me know about your requirements (they should
> > have been in the original commit message, though ;))
> 
> I'm new to Linux kernel development, so please forgive me...

That was just a pointer, no complaint. You did a fine job in supplying
information around your patch, so thanks.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]