From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
To: "Basak, Partha" <p-basak2@ti.com>
Cc: "paul@pwsan.com" <paul@pwsan.com>,
"Kalliguddi, Hema" <hemahk@ti.com>,
"Nayak, Rajendra" <rnayak@ti.com>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: On the APIs for Enabling and Disabling Wakeup capability.
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:25:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vd9isdxb.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB59301E75F0BBF@dbde02.ent.ti.com> (Partha Basak's message of "Wed\, 16 Jun 2010 20\:09\:53 +0530")
"Basak, Partha" <p-basak2@ti.com> writes:
> I wanted to close on the introduction of two new OMAP device APIs
> omap_device_enable_wakeup () & omap_device_disable_wakeup() in
> omap_device layer.
>
> These APIs are potentially needed by the USB driver (via function
> pointers) to work around some USB erratum.
>
> Alternatively, can we call omap_hwmod_enable_wakeup() via function
> pointer? Is it agreeable to call these from driver code (via
> function pointers)in some special cases such as to handle some
> errata?
Hi Partha,
First, we need to dig up the Errata details for that USB problem to
better understand the USB-specific issue.
In addition, Paul and I discussed the option of automatically managing
the wakeup during the hwmod enable/idle, since there isn't really a
need to have the wakeup enabled when the hwmod is active.
Do you see any disadvantages to that? That would be much cleaner than
manually managing the wakeup feature per-driver.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-17 0:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-16 14:39 On the APIs for Enabling and Disabling Wakeup capability Basak, Partha
2010-06-16 14:58 ` Basak, Partha
2010-06-17 0:25 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2010-06-17 3:42 ` Kalliguddi, Hema
2010-06-17 9:34 ` Cousson, Benoit
2010-06-18 8:59 ` Kalliguddi, Hema
2010-06-18 14:58 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-06-22 10:29 ` Basak, Partha
2010-06-23 20:31 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-06-24 14:54 ` Kalliguddi, Hema
2010-06-24 15:04 ` Basak, Partha
2010-06-28 14:25 ` Kalliguddi, Hema
2010-06-28 16:25 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-06-24 14:42 ` Kalliguddi, Hema
2010-06-27 3:05 ` David Brownell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87vd9isdxb.fsf@deeprootsystems.com \
--to=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=hemahk@ti.com \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p-basak2@ti.com \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=rnayak@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox