From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Fix bus-level power management callbacks Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:28:02 +0000 Message-ID: <20100325092802.GA27729@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <201003132204.30905.rjw@sisk.pl> <201003192344.09000.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100325095720.0b115056@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100325095720.0b115056-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Linux I2C , Alan Stern , LKML List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Mark, you contributed the initial runtime PM support for the i2c > subsystem, I thought you would have comments on Rafael's > reimplementation? Yeah, see below... > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 7 + > I am a little surprised to see changes to a generic header file here, > how is the i2c subsystem so special that we have needs other subsystems > did not? Very few subsystems actually support runtime PM thus far - I think it's more the case that I2C is an early user than anything else. > Apart from the above, the code looks sane to me, but then again I don't > know a thing about power management. I'll keep this patch in my i2c > tree, scheduled for merge in 2.6.35. If there are any updates, please > send them over, either as a new patch or as incremental changes which I > will merge myself. I'm in a similar position - the code looks fine except I'm not 100% sure I follow all the possible ifdefs and I've never actually used hibernate (s2disk isn't supported on ARM) but for what it's worth: Acked-by: Mark Brown