Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:00:19 +0100 | From | Wolfram Sang <> | Subject | Re: [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]
| |