Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of state across suspend/resume

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/03/2017 09:11 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [171103 10:38]:
>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Hello Linus,
>>>
>>> It's me again, so I have been thinking about the problem originally
>>> reported in: [PATCH fixes v3] pinctrl: Really force states during suspend/resume
>>>
>>> and other similar patches a while ago, and this new version allows a platform
>>> using pinctrl-single to specify whether its pins are going to lose their state
>>> during a system deep sleep.
>>>
>>> Note that this is still checked at the pinctrl_select_state() because consumers
>>> of the pinctrl API might be calling this from their suspend/resume functions
>>> and should not have to know whether the provider does lose its pin states.
>>>
>>
>> Still feels to me like it should be the providers job to the
>> restore the state rather than expecting the consumer to
>> re-request any state it had. But lets wait and see what Linus
>> thinks.
> 
> But isn't it the consumer device losing it's state here? Or the
> pinctrl provider losing it's state?

The pinctrl provider is losing its state, hence these two patches.

> 
> Anyways, the context lost flag should be managed in the PM core for
> the device, so adding linux-pm and Rafael to Cc.

I don't think it's that simple but sure, why not.
-- 
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html