> > > > Are you sure its unneeded? What if someone attempts to suspend the > > > > system when a transaction is running? > > > That's exactly my question. I think the machine will suspend and the > > > transaction fail. So no suspend callback isn't optimal, but maybe OK?! > > > > Having failures just because suspend happened at wrong time is > > bad. .suspend() should just wait for end of transaction. > > I'm not sure what situation could actually occur that would suspend the > system in the middle of an I2C transaction. If an I2C transaction was > started and the CPU was suspended, this would appear to be a problem > outside the I2C driver itself. Would other I2C drivers have this similar > problem? Well, can the i2c transaction sleep? If so, suspend probably can come in the middle. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
