From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: exynos5: Properly use the "noirq" variants of suspend/resume Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:48:01 -0700 Message-ID: <7hwqcbs166.fsf@paris.lan> References: <1403155273-1057-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <7h8uosyc3k.fsf@paris.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f43.google.com ([209.85.160.43]:50187 "EHLO mail-pb0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754155AbaFTVsF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:48:05 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id um1so3320111pbc.30 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Doug Anderson's message of "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:43:48 -0700") Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Wolfram Sang , Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , Javier Martinez Canillas , naveen krishna , Jingoo Han , Jean Delvare , Simon Glass , Paul Gortmaker , standby24x7@gmail.com, Sachin Kamat , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , linux-samsung-soc , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Hi Doug, Doug Anderson writes: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Doug Anderson writes: >> >>> The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the >>> "noirq" variants. However during review feedback it was moved to >>> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no >>> longer actually "noirq" (despite functions named >>> exynos5_i2c_suspend_noirq and exynos5_i2c_resume_noirq). >>> >>> i2c controllers that might have wakeup sources on them seem to need to >>> resume at noirq time so that the individual drivers can actually read >>> the i2c bus to handle their wakeup. >> >> I suspect usage of the noirq variants pre-dates the existence of the >> late/early callbacks in the PM core, but based on the description above, >> I suspect what you actually want is the late/early callbacks. > > I think it actually really needs noirq. ;) Yes, it appears it does. Objection withdrawn. I just wanted to be sure because since the introduction of late/early, the need for noirq should be pretty rare, but there certainly are needs. In this case though, the need for it has more to do with the lack of a way for us to describe non parent-child device dependencies than whether or not IRQs are enabled or not. Kevin