Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:56:23 -0600 | From | Josh Cartwright <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI |
| |
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 05:47:48PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:05:33PM -0600, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME > > +static int spmi_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev) > > +{ > > + struct spmi_device *sdev = to_spmi_device(dev); > > + int err; > > + > > + err = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + return spmi_command_sleep(sdev); > > shouldn't this too calls be swapped ? I mean, some pm_runtime > implementations could be gating clocks at the driver's > ->runtime_suspend() callback.
Perhaps. I had added the explicit SLEEP/WAKEUP commands to suspend()/resume(), but now I'm thinking issuing these commands should not be the responsibility of the core, since the semantics of the SLEEP/ACTIVE state aren't well defined in general (each implementation/slave defines what, if anything, these states mean).
Fortunately, there are no users yet, so this is a painless change. :)
Thanks for taking a look.
Josh
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |