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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
