Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com writes:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 11:09:20AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Current usage of runtime PM is not quite correct. The actual
idle/unidle of the I2C hardware should not happen until the runtime PM
callbacks are called. Therefore, change
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:53:37AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
@@ -1140,6 +1128,36 @@ omap_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
return 0;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
+static int omap_i2c_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct platform_device *pdev =
Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com writes:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:53:37AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
@@ -1140,6 +1128,36 @@ omap_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
return 0;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
+static int omap_i2c_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+
Current usage of runtime PM is not quite correct. The actual
idle/unidle of the I2C hardware should not happen until the runtime PM
callbacks are called. Therefore, change omap_i2c_[un]idle() functions
to only be called from the runtime PM callbacks (when usage count
transitions to/from zero.)
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 11:09:20AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Current usage of runtime PM is not quite correct. The actual
idle/unidle of the I2C hardware should not happen until the runtime PM
callbacks are called. Therefore, change omap_i2c_[un]idle() functions
to only be called from
