On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday, April 07, 2011, Sonny Rao wrote: >> 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? > > Yes. Ok, I'll probably submit a patch for the specific case of the slow light sensor to the IIO guys later on, and if I find cases where we get wins on other I2C heavy platforms (like ARM netbooks) I'll send those out as device-specific changes as well. <snip> > It is used by subsystems where dependencies between devices are known to > generally follow the structure of the device hierarchy within the kernel > (i.e. they are well-defined buses with well-defined parents and children). Ok, thanks for the explanation! Sonny _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
