From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylwester Nawrocki Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-s3c2410: Add stub runtime power management Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:33:44 +0100 Message-ID: <4F1B2F38.9050708@gmail.com> References: <1327152527-11364-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120121183155.GE10751@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F1B2235.4000009@gmail.com> <201201212223.54801.heiko@sntech.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201201212223.54801.heiko@sntech.de> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?SGVpa28gU3TDvGJuZXI=?= Cc: Mark Brown , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Jean Delvare , Wolfram Sang , Ben Dooks , linux-samsung-soc List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On 01/21/2012 10:23 PM, Heiko St=C3=BCbner wrote: > Am Samstag 21 Januar 2012, 21:38:13 schrieb Sylwester Nawrocki: >> On 01/21/2012 07:31 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 04:52:58PM +0100, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>>> On 01/21/2012 02:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> that the rather serious problems with getting I2C patches applied I= 'd >>> rather do as little as possible in individual patches. >>> >>> It would also introduce a regression for systems that don't use run= time >>> PM (probably most s3c24xx ones). >> >> Indeed, I'd forgotten about this fact for a while. I suspect the Run= -time >> PM core functionality could be enabled on those platform, allowing t= o make >> the common driver dependant on PM_RUNTIME. Not sure if that's accept= able >> for the smaller SoCs though. It rather sounds more like lots of trou= ble >> for little benefits. Maybe it's desirable to do that at some point a= nyway. >=20 > At least S3C2416/S3C2450 and S3C2412 (i.e. the ARMv5 SoCs) might prof= it from > it, as they also support the idle modes (stop modes) that Mark is tar= getting > with his patches in the long run. Ah, I was just about to ask whether this patch is a part of some wider = plan. It would be much better to enable core runtime PM support on all platfo= rms that use particular driver, even though there is no any drivers adapted= =20 runtime PM on some of them yet. >=20 > Not sure about the 2410, 2440 and 2443 currently But would just enabling RUNTIME_PM make any harm to those platforms ? --=20 Regards, Sylwester