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 22:10:54 +0200 Message-ID: <54456C4E.9090303@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> <544567A1.2060006@collabora.co.uk> <20141020195641.GT18557@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([93.93.135.160]:40284 "EHLO bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751688AbaJTULE (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:11:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20141020195641.GT18557@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Doug Anderson , Kukjin Kim , Lee Jones , Tomasz Figa , Chanwoo Choi , linux-samsung-soc , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Chris Zhong , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Hello Mark, On 10/20/2014 09:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:50:57PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 10/20/2014 07:36 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> > 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." > >> 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 > > Note that architectures are an example of a platform. It really depends > what's responsible for final poweroff, we want this called as late as we > possibly can. > Got it. Thanks for the explanation. >> 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? > > No, that's obviously not going to do anything useful for multiplatform. > Ok, then let's keep to do it per-platform as is proposed on $subject for Exynos and what Chris proposed for Rockchip in [0] since it seems that's the place where these calls belong. Best regards, Javier [0]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg53640.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk (Javier Martinez Canillas) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:10:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: Call regulator core suspend prepare and finish functions In-Reply-To: <20141020195641.GT18557@sirena.org.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> <544567A1.2060006@collabora.co.uk> <20141020195641.GT18557@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <54456C4E.9090303@collabora.co.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello Mark, On 10/20/2014 09:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:50:57PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 10/20/2014 07:36 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> > 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." > >> 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 > > Note that architectures are an example of a platform. It really depends > what's responsible for final poweroff, we want this called as late as we > possibly can. > Got it. Thanks for the explanation. >> 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? > > No, that's obviously not going to do anything useful for multiplatform. > Ok, then let's keep to do it per-platform as is proposed on $subject for Exynos and what Chris proposed for Rockchip in [0] since it seems that's the place where these calls belong. Best regards, Javier [0]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg53640.html