Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:25 AM: > Ben, Arnd, > > Could you please ack/nack the patch at the start of this thread for Colin; > see below. Ben, can you please comment on the acceptability of this patch? Or Arnd, did Mark's most recent explanation of the situation provide enough context for you to ack/nak it? Thanks. > Thanks. > > Colin Cross wrote at Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:34 PM: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Mark Brown wrote at Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:15 PM: > > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:59:27PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote: > > >> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Mark Brown > > >> > > >> > > For example with ASoC we'd sort all the components before the ASoC card > > >> > > without regard for their bus dependencies or any other dependencies they > > >> > > have (eg, their regulators). Since the ASoC card is a platform device > > >> > > it's likely to have registered early with no regard for where the buses > > >> > > the card needs are registered. I'd expect there's a reasonable chance > > >> > > it'll actually make things worse in the short term. > > >> > > >> > You can't just move everything after the card, you have to move > > >> > everything after the last device that was probed, and it only works if > > >> > nothing depends on any of the devices that are moved. > > >> > > >> Sorry, I said that the wrong way round due to trying to reply quickly - > > >> the card would be the thing that moves since that's the thing that > > >> actually does the suspend but we've *no* idea which device we need to > > >> move it after. Since all the function does is a direct move after or > > >> before a single device all we can do is pick one and pray that it's the > > >> right device. > > > > > > Colin, > > > > > > This thread seems to have died down; how should we make progress? > > > > > > It sounds like the suspend_irq solution is the current de-facto standard; > > > not optimal, but all we really have right now and already in use. I could > > > certainly see avoiding this solution if it was the first time it was > > > employed, but re-using it seems reasonable to me? > > > > > > Alternatively, are you attending either Linux Plumbers Conference or the > > > Kernel Summit? Mark implied this topic might well come up for discussion > > > there. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make LPC due to a conflict. > > I don't think I'll be able to make it. > > > > > (and you'd mentioned having the subsystem maintainers weigh in on this; > > > which sub-system; IRQ, power, I2C, ...?) > > > > If Ben says its OK, its fine with me. Or maybe Arnd wants to weigh in? -- nvpublic -- 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
