From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Hook up runtime PM support Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:14:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20100215201417.1060b11a@hyperion.delvare> References: <1265373011-12874-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20100215191409.14d87257@hyperion.delvare> <20100215183058.GA24590@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <201002152008.24142.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201002152008.24142.rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Mark Brown , Linux I2C List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:08:24 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 15 February 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 07:14:09PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > > Applied, thanks. I am a little surprised to see that these functions > > > have nothing i2c-specific, so I am wondering why we have to duplicate > > > them in every bus type... Shouldn't the functions above be part of > > > drivers/base/power/runtime.c and exported so that all bus types that > > > want them can reuse them? > > In fact this is the first bus type that doesn't need anything specific in these > routines so fat. > > > I tend to agree - in fact I'd been a little surprised the default for > > buses that don't provide anything was to refuse to do runtime PM (though > > I can see the transition issues when a bus does want to go and do its > > own thing). > > > > My actual plan here was to implement this for a couple of buses and then > > present a patch factoring out the common code. > > That's a good approach IMO. OK, fine with me. -- Jean Delvare