lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] i2c-mux-pca954x: Disable mux after 200ms timeout

> I had looked a bit in that direction, but I think there's currently
> no way for a driver to say "I won't be needing the bus for a while".
> Something like that would be critical for such a pm system to work.

Yes. I wasn't sure if something already existed.

> In any case, it doesn't sound like something I can sell - it's
> understandable for my employer that I spent an extra hour or so to
> clean up and submit the code to upstream, but this appears to go
> into a different class of rework.
>
> So where do you want to go with this? Should I rework the patch to
> make the timeout optional, or should I simply forget about
> integrating at all?

I understand your constraints, yet from a maintenance perspective I
shouldn't have such code in a driver. So, out-of-tree that is for now.

> In fact, on the customer's board, the pca mux is powered by a supply
> so the whole mux can be powered-down too, for which I also needed to
> patch the pca driver to reset its state when the powersupply
> reported that it was going down. I think that particular patch isn't
> of much use to the community though, or is it?

If it uses standard pm callbacks, I'd think this makes sense.

> Most hardware can control power and clocks to the I2C controller,
> which would indeed account for some power savings. But again, that
> would require drivers to provide estimations as to when they will
> need the bus. And it would require much more information on the bus
> controller too, though I suspect that to be the easier part.

There are drivers gating off the clocks simply after every transfer. I
don't know your HW details and workloads, but I wondered if you can
unconditionally switch off the core, do some pinmuxing...

> > Anyway, thanks for letting me know about your requirements (they should
> > have been in the original commit message, though ;))
>
> I'm new to Linux kernel development, so please forgive me...

That was just a pointer, no complaint. You did a fine job in supplying
information around your patch, so thanks.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-26 18:41    [W:0.037 / U:1.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site