From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:34:35 +0000 Message-ID: <20101217133434.GH31453@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <20101217125427.GA29640@sirena.org.uk> <201012171425.07775.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201012171425.07775.rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Rabin Vincent , stern-nwvwT67g6+6dFdvTe/nMLpVzexx5G7lz@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, LKML List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 02:25:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, December 17, 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > > It'd be really good if this could all be factored out into the PM core, > > we're going to have to do the same thing for at least SPI as well and > > possibly some other buses :/ > So how exactly the PM core is supposed to include those things? > There certainly are other buses that don't want to do them. By, for example, providing default implementations which the buses can use if they choose to.