pxa:spitz_pm.c: commit b6eede11 breaks spitz resume under certain conditions.

[eric.y.miao@gmail.com (Eric Miao)]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Marko Kati? <dromede@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Marko Kati? <dromede@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Marko Kati? <dromede@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Almost there, but I guess we could do this better and less confusing by having
>>>>> another array, e.g. tosa_gpio18_config[], which is tosa specific, and only
>>>>> initialize that MFP setting in the tosa path.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also looked at the original sharp kernel sources.
>>>>>> Only tosa used the RDY signal for it's tc6393tx chip, other machines simply
>>>>>> configured gpio18 as output in their suspend routines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, tosa doesn't use sharpsl_pm. Tosa uses the pda-power framework.
>>>> I said that only tosa uses the RDY signal to point out that we
>>>> probably don't need
>>>> the mfp-config line in postsuspend. That being said, i still think
>>>> that the array ordering
>>>> fix is adequate. Maybe later we may remove the mfp-config line from
>>>> postsuspend when
>>>> we're absolutely sure it isn't necessary for devices that use spitz_pm.c.
>>>
>>> So Eric what do you think, is the simple gpio array reordering patch
>>> an adequate fix for this bug?
>>
>> Sorry for late reply. That simple reordering still looks a bit confusing
>> to me, i.e. the same pin firstly configured as GPIO then RDY. Do we
>> have a less confusing way to fix this?
>
> well, we could also remove the mfp-config line in postsuspend. I
> suspect that it's only there because tosa was supposed to use
> sharpsl_pm and it currently doesn't (and certainly never will). And as
> i said, the original sharp kernels never did configure gpio 18 as RDY,
> except for tosa.

OK, please submit the patch for review.