On 01/21/2014 10:34 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 01/20/2014 06:48 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 01/20/2014 03:41 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Some platforms have a PHY hooked up to the SATA controller. >>> The PHY needs to be initialized and powered up for SATA to work. >>> We do that using the Generic PHY framework in PATCH 3. >>> >>> In order to support SATA on the OMAP platforms we need to runtime >>> resume the device before use. PATCH 4 takes care of that. >> >> Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. I'm afraid this conflicts >> quite a bit with my recent ahci_platform.c work, not a big problem >> really, the series can go in either way. >> >> Your phy support will slot nicely into the new ahci_platform_get_resources >> and ahci_platform_enable_resources functions my refactoring introduces, >> looking at it from this pov it might be better / easier to rebase your series >> on top of the v4 of my series I've just send. >> >> Which brings me to one comment about your series why are you not doing phy_exit >> and phy_init on suspend resp. resume ? The phy can use quite a bit of power, >> if the phy init / exit end up in ahci_platform_enable_resources / >> ahci_platform_disable_resources, this will happen automatically for better or >> worse. So it would be good to test if this would work or not ... > > Right. Bartlomiej had pointed this out earlier, but I just wasn't very sure about it. > > Is it sufficient to just call phy_power_off() in suspend and phy_power_on() in resume? > Or do we call phy_exit() and phy_init() respectively as well. > > Kishon, any suggestions? OK. Answering my own question. On OMAP platform we power down the phy in phy_power_off() and idle the DPLL in phy_exit(), so my guess is both should be called in suspend() to save the most power. cheers, -roger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
