On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:49:17AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >> Neither is the case. For these subsystems, the PM dependencies _are_ >> known. > > ... > >> Now, I have no idea what the situation is with regard to I2C... > > You definitely don't know *anything* about the relationships for I2C, > especially in embedded systems. > Would it be okay to enable this on a per-device basis where it is known to be safe? I started out doing it like this, but I didn't like the way the patch looked because it ended up having to call this function twice -- once on the i2c master device and once on it's client devices (and actually a third time because it had another struct dev for the industrial IO device). So, that seemed pretty ugly. Also, it didn't seem to match the usage of device_enable_async_suspend() in other parts of the kernel where it was used on whole subsystems. Sonny _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
