Hi Doug, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the >>> "noirq" variants. However during review feedback it was moved to >>> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no >>> longer actually "noirq" (despite functions named >>> exynos5_i2c_suspend_noirq and exynos5_i2c_resume_noirq). >>> >>> i2c controllers that might have wakeup sources on them seem to need to >>> resume at noirq time so that the individual drivers can actually read >>> the i2c bus to handle their wakeup. >> >> I suspect usage of the noirq variants pre-dates the existence of the >> late/early callbacks in the PM core, but based on the description above, >> I suspect what you actually want is the late/early callbacks. > > I think it actually really needs noirq. ;) Yes, it appears it does. Objection withdrawn. I just wanted to be sure because since the introduction of late/early, the need for noirq should be pretty rare, but there certainly are needs. <tangent> In this case though, the need for it has more to do with the lack of a way for us to describe non parent-child device dependencies than whether or not IRQs are enabled or not. </tangent> Kevin -- 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
