On Saturday, October 14, 2017 1:45:11 AM CEST Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 07:37:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:30:06AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 02:19:28AM +0800, jeffy wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, it's the same stuff as we get with initcall ordering. This sort > > > > > of thing does happen with things like PMICs which tend to have > > > > > hardware > > > > > that the system wants to manipulate in the IRQs off part of suspend. > > > > > Ideally the dependency annotation stuff would figure things out though > > > > > I'm not sure what the status of that is. > > > > > I'd say non-existent for resources such as regulators, pwms, clocks, > > > etc. I do not think many places call device_link_add()... I think adding > > > this to devm_* APIs might be easiest to get the ball going as they > > > naturally have consumer device and can easily figure out the supplier > > > side. > > > > Hrm, are things in a state where we're supposed to be doing that? I've > > not seen anyone even trying which is a bit odd, I'd thought there was > > some core work still ongoing (and it wasn't clear to me if we were going > > to try to do things like use DT/ACPI cross references to figure this > > stuff out). > > Not sure, adding Rafael...
The infrastructure in the core is there, the part related to getting that information from firmware is (mostly) missing. Still, moving system suspend/resume callbacks to the late/early phases may be a good idea anyway. Thanks, Rafael
