On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/06/11 23:47, Sonny Rao wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 04/06/11 03:45, Sonny Rao wrote: >>>> Industrial I/O devices can sometimes take a long time to resume, >>>> allowing them to be asynchronus saves 50ms on one light sensor >>>> >>> Hi Sonny, >>> >>> cc'd linux-iio >>> >>> I'm not particularly familiar with this. Are there any disadvantages? >>> I just wonder if it would be better to push this into individual drivers >>> rather than the core? >> >> Yeah we could do it that way too, I sent out a similar patch for i2c >> and people were asking if it was entirely safe. It sounds like it may >> depend on dependencies between devices. >> >> Do you know if any of the devices in iio have inter-device dependencies? >> I was under the impression they were mostly stand-alone sensors that >> ordinarily wouldn't, but I haven't tried to audit all of them or anything. > Mostly I think is the key word here. Right now I don't think we have anything > that would have a problem, but putting something like that in the core is > liable to bite sometime in the future. For now at least I think I'd prefer > to see it in an individual driver. > Ok sure, FYI, I had a similar discussion with the i2c folks and I think the consensus was to do it per-driver as well. The driver I was interested in was the tsl258x which isn't in staging yet. When it goes in, I shall submit my patch on top of that. Thanks, Sonny _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
