On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:14:15PM +0200, Stefan Eletzhofer wrote: > Well, Russell, I got your hint now :) > > Is a PM callback in assabet.c The Right Thing To Do, or where > should the platform-dependent GPIO/BCR/whatever PM code live?
I've been trying to avoid both. The cleaner solution out of both would be to put a callback into the platform dependent code. However, if you're working on 2.5, you should really look towards using the new device tree stuff - Mochel should be updating the docs today which includes how the power management of the device tree works. > And about the UCB reset issue in the l3 code: IMHO only the first line > should be removed, thus: > > --- l3-bit-sa1100.c.org Mon Apr 22 14:10:39 2002 > +++ l3-bit-sa1100.c Mon Apr 22 14:10:48 2002 > @@ -250,8 +250,6 @@ > * need to do this here so that we can communicate on > * the I2C/L3 buses. > */ > - ASSABET_BCR_set(ASSABET_BCR_CODEC_RST); > - mdelay(1); > ASSABET_BCR_clear(ASSABET_BCR_CODEC_RST); > mdelay(1); > ASSABET_BCR_set(ASSABET_BCR_CODEC_RST); > > The UCB would then get a reset when the l3 module is inserted, though. > Maybe we need some sort of resource management there? It's probably fine to get rid of that - I only put it in because nothing else appeared to guarantee it was reset. Really, we want to release the reset when anything that needs it is loaded, and not before. _______________________________________________ http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/armlinux/mailinglists.php Please visit the above addresses for information on this list.
