On 11/03/2017 09:11 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Charles Keepax <[email protected]> [171103 10:38]: >> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> Hello Linus, >>> >>> It's me again, so I have been thinking about the problem originally >>> reported in: [PATCH fixes v3] pinctrl: Really force states during >>> suspend/resume >>> >>> and other similar patches a while ago, and this new version allows a >>> platform >>> using pinctrl-single to specify whether its pins are going to lose their >>> state >>> during a system deep sleep. >>> >>> Note that this is still checked at the pinctrl_select_state() because >>> consumers >>> of the pinctrl API might be calling this from their suspend/resume functions >>> and should not have to know whether the provider does lose its pin states. >>> >> >> Still feels to me like it should be the providers job to the >> restore the state rather than expecting the consumer to >> re-request any state it had. But lets wait and see what Linus >> thinks. > > But isn't it the consumer device losing it's state here? Or the > pinctrl provider losing it's state?
The pinctrl provider is losing its state, hence these two patches. > > Anyways, the context lost flag should be managed in the PM core for > the device, so adding linux-pm and Rafael to Cc. I don't think it's that simple but sure, why not. -- Florian
