[adding Rafael Wysocki to cc as Suspend-to-RAM maintainer] On 10/20/2014 07:36 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Javier, > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas > <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It turns out that regulator_suspend_finish() actually returns an error >>> code. Could you print a warning if you see it? >>> >> >> Yes, I noticed this when looking at Chris patch for Rockchip but didn't re-spin >> because I'm not sure anymore if this is the right solution. I mean, if is >> correct to add the same calls on every platform or if the regulator suspend >> prepare and finish functions should be called from the suspend core instead. >> >> For example calling regulator_suspend_prepare() from platform_suspend_prepare() >> [0] will have the advantage of passing the correct suspend_state_t state instead >> of hard-coding PM_SUSPEND_MEM and will make the regulator suspend states to work >> on all platforms. > > Yes. If we can get this added to the core that would be better. > Agreed, let's see what Rafael says about it. > I guess I was just trying to follow the suggestion that was in the > regulator code: > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/regulator/core.c#L3699 > that says "This will usually be called by machine suspend code prior > to supending." > > -Doug > I see, but still I feel as if it may be a lot of duplication since most platforms will likely want to call the regulator core suspend prepare and finish functions. Maybe it can be added as a Kconfig option so each platform can choose at the config level if they want those to be called? Best regard, Javier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |