On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 03:25:25AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:31:11 AM Mark Brown wrote: > > It shouldn't even need to do that, it should just be able to rely on the > > controller to power itself up when asked to do work. This is how the > > existing implementations are done - the controller power management is > > totally transparent to the slave. > If both the I2C client and I2C controller have corresponding objects in the > ACPI namespace and the client's object is a child of the controller's object, > then in order to power up the client we need to power up the controller even > if no transactions are going to be carried out. That's what the spec simply > requires us to do in that case. Like I said I think this should be handled by the power domains (or otherwise in the ACPI specific code) - we shouldn't be needing to modify individual drivers to work around thoughtlessness in the ACPI spec.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
