On 10 February 2014 13:51, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:33:50PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 4 February 2014 20:16, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > This seems like a fairly hideous thing to be having to open code in an >> > individual driver, it all looks generic and like something that most if > > ... > >> > Putting it in a helper would at least mean that it's easier for the >> > mechanics to be transferred to the core proper later on. > >> I agree, a helper function would be nice. I have earlier sent a patch >> to the PM core, that is similar to the code above, though it was >> rejected in it's current form. Let me follow up on this again. > >> At this point, would a way forward be to still go ahead with this >> patch and then convert to, when/if, the helper function from the PM >> core becomes available? > > It's definitely *a* way forward, but I'm not convinced it's a good way > forward. Since it's something that I'd expect us to be doing in all > drivers we'd want to replicate it all over the place which is obviously > not good, or conversely if there are issues that prevented the code > being added to the PM core then presumably we're just adding problematic > code to the driver (you've not mentioned what the problems were with > doing this in the PM core). I have posted a patch which adds a runtime PM helper function to the PM core, I am hoping to get some comments soon. http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139228211505423&w=2 So I agree, let's put this patch on hold until we sorted out how to proceed. Though I will rebase and send a v2 of it, just to keep it as a reference for later use. Kind regards Uffe -- 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
