lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 2/4] ACPI / LPSS: custom power domain for LPSS
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:01:31PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 01:05:11 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:33:09PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > First, is the 10 ms sleep really necessary? I'd expect the AML to take care of
> > > such delays (this is not a PCI device formally).
> >
> > Unfortunately that is not the case. There is nothing in the AML for
> > this. Mika, correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > > And because this is not a PCI device formally, why is the comment talking about
> > > the PCI spec? Why is PCI relevant in any way here?
> >
> > Under the hood the devices are still PCI devices, even if they
> > formally aren't. Maybe I should point that out in the comment..
> >
> > We put the sleep there because without it there was no guarantee if
> > the device was properly resumed by the time the drivers resume hooks
> > were called. The symptom in case of a failure was simply that the
> > registers could not be written, which leads into timeouts at least in
> > case of the I2C and UART and making them unusable until the next
> > suspend followed by resume.
>
> OK, so the msleep() is functionally necessary. Instead of talking about the
> PCI in the comment, which will make a casual reader think "What the heck?",
> please say something like "the delay is necessary for the subsequent register
> writes to succeed on <example system>".

OK.

Thanks,

--
heikki


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-21 13:21    [W:0.054 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site