On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:12:49AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > That's definitely an ACPI specific (probably x86 specific ACPI?) > requirement not a generic one, on some systems it would increase power > consumption since the controller will need to sit on while the device is > functioning autonomously. Yes, the ACPI 5.0 spec says that the device cannot be in higher D-state than its parent. This is not x86 specific, though I'm not sure if this is implemented elsewhere. > Even though the controller power consumption is going to be minimal the > power domain it is in may be relatively large. Can't the power domains > for ACPI deal with this requirement, for example by making the I2C slave > power domains children of the controller power domain? We'll look into this. Thanks for the suggestion. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
