Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org>]

On Friday, February 18, 2011, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 20:55, Rabin Vincent <rabin-66gdRtMMWGc@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > This will solve the platform vs AMBA bus, but shouldn't we really be
> > aiming for consistent behaviour between these and the other busses such
> > as I2C and SPI, which are also usually commonly used on the same
> > platforms and are using GENERIC_PM_OPS?
> >
> > Should we be auditing all platform drivers and then switch platform to
> > the GENERIC_PM_OPS?
> >
> > Or should the two points (1) and (2) be not handled in the bus at all
> > and be left to individual drivers (in which case we should audit i2c and
> > spi and change GENERIC_PM_OPS)?
> 
> How about something like the below?  If we have something like this, we
> can just switch platform to GENERIC_PM_OPS and add the
> pm_runtime_want_interaction() (or something better named) call to the
> i2c and spi drivers using runtime PM.

Why don't we make platform_bus_type behave along the lines of generic ops
instead?

Rafael