From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: Call regulator core suspend prepare and finish functions Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:50:57 +0200 Message-ID: <544567A1.2060006@collabora.co.uk> References: <1413454410-23396-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <1413454410-23396-3-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <54453F2E.1080401@collabora.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Kukjin Kim , Lee Jones , Mark Brown , Tomasz Figa , Chanwoo Choi , linux-samsung-soc , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Chris Zhong , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org [adding Rafael Wysocki to cc as Suspend-to-RAM maintainer] On 10/20/2014 07:36 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Javier, > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: >>> It turns out that regulator_suspend_finish() actually returns an error >>> code. Could you print a warning if you see it? >>> >> >> Yes, I noticed this when looking at Chris patch for Rockchip but didn't re-spin >> because I'm not sure anymore if this is the right solution. I mean, if is >> correct to add the same calls on every platform or if the regulator suspend >> prepare and finish functions should be called from the suspend core instead. >> >> For example calling regulator_suspend_prepare() from platform_suspend_prepare() >> [0] will have the advantage of passing the correct suspend_state_t state instead >> of hard-coding PM_SUSPEND_MEM and will make the regulator suspend states to work >> on all platforms. > > Yes. If we can get this added to the core that would be better. > Agreed, let's see what Rafael says about it. > I guess I was just trying to follow the suggestion that was in the > regulator code: > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/regulator/core.c#L3699 > that says "This will usually be called by machine suspend code prior > to supending." > > -Doug > I see, but still I feel as if it may be a lot of duplication since most platforms will likely want to call the regulator core suspend prepare and finish functions. Maybe it can be added as a Kconfig option so each platform can choose at the config level if they want those to be called? Best regard, Javier From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk (Javier Martinez Canillas) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:50:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: Call regulator core suspend prepare and finish functions In-Reply-To: References: <1413454410-23396-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <1413454410-23396-3-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <54453F2E.1080401@collabora.co.uk> Message-ID: <544567A1.2060006@collabora.co.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [adding Rafael Wysocki to cc as Suspend-to-RAM maintainer] On 10/20/2014 07:36 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Javier, > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: >>> It turns out that regulator_suspend_finish() actually returns an error >>> code. Could you print a warning if you see it? >>> >> >> Yes, I noticed this when looking at Chris patch for Rockchip but didn't re-spin >> because I'm not sure anymore if this is the right solution. I mean, if is >> correct to add the same calls on every platform or if the regulator suspend >> prepare and finish functions should be called from the suspend core instead. >> >> For example calling regulator_suspend_prepare() from platform_suspend_prepare() >> [0] will have the advantage of passing the correct suspend_state_t state instead >> of hard-coding PM_SUSPEND_MEM and will make the regulator suspend states to work >> on all platforms. > > Yes. If we can get this added to the core that would be better. > Agreed, let's see what Rafael says about it. > I guess I was just trying to follow the suggestion that was in the > regulator code: > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/regulator/core.c#L3699 > that says "This will usually be called by machine suspend code prior > to supending." > > -Doug > I see, but still I feel as if it may be a lot of duplication since most platforms will likely want to call the regulator core suspend prepare and finish functions. Maybe it can be added as a Kconfig option so each platform can choose at the config level if they want those to be called? Best regard, Javier