On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:58:52AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:18:06AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:50:28AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > > A little more background: we need pxamci to be a child of SPI because > > > our PMIC is connected via SPI, and a PMIC regulator is used for mmc > > > powering; enforcing this hierarchy is needed to make pxamci suspend and > > > resume properly. > > I don't think this is the right solution - and I don't know what the > > right solution would be given that the interfaces I suspect you need > > aren't public. > Um, why not ask the SPI maintainer? I don't know what the SPI code is > doing, sorry. It's not specific to SPI - the problem is the need to express ordering constraints in suspend/resume that go beyond what the device tree gives. I believe that the pm_link stuff in -next is what's needed here? I was planning to look at this within the regulator API before the next merge window so that I can hopefully have something ready for -next after that (or possibly even get it in in the same merge window if the cross tree issues aren't too painful).