Hello Doug,
On 06/26/2014 06:29 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Javier,
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello Doug,
>>
>> On 06/26/2014 06:12 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Javier,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
>>> <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>>>> +static int max77802_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct i2c_client *i2c = container_of(dev, struct i2c_client, dev);
>>>>>> + struct max77802_dev *max77802 = i2c_get_clientdata(i2c);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
>>>>>> + enable_irq_wake(max77802->irq);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + disable_irq(max77802->irq);
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you add short comment why this is needed? I know why but just for
>>>>> future generations which will wonder: "why do we need to disable the IRQ
>>>>> while suspending?" :). Especially that this is rather a workaround for
>>>>> issue in other driver (I2C bus).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good idea, I'll add a comment here on next version so code archaeologists can
>>>> figure out what what's going on here.
>>>
>>> Is the disable_irq() needed if you have
>>> <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4421891/>?
>>>
>>
>> Probably not but I added the following comment:
>>
>> /*
>> * The IRQ must be disabled during suspend since due wakeup
>> * ordering issues it may be possible that the I2C controller
>> * is still suspended when the interrupt happens so the IRQ
>> * handler will fail to read the I2C bus.
>> */
>> disable_irq(max77802->irq);
>>
>> since in theory this PMIC can be used in other SoCs besides
>> Exynos5420/Exynos5800 and it may be possible that the I2C controller driver for
>> these other SoCs may not resume at noirq time.
>>
>> But on a second thought, this PMIC seems to be designed specially for these two
>> Exynos SoCs so I guess it's safe to assume that it is not needed?
>
> Right, there's a close coupling between PMICs and SoCs. The PMIC has
> special sequencing and default voltage levels that were tuned exactly
> for this SoC.
>
> Note: Wolfram has not actually responded to my patch much less
> accepted it. It's entirely possible that in another month or two
> we'll hear back a big fat NAK. In that case your solution will be the
> best one I can think of.
>
Ok, in that case I'll leave as is for now and add the comment but later once/if
your patch is merged, this can be removed.
>
> -Doug
>
Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
