Tomasz Figa writes:
> On 24.06.2014 00:27, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly,
Doug Anderson writes:
> Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> So I guess in this case the truly correct way to handle it is:
>>>
>>> 1. i2c controller should have Runtime PM even though (as per the code
>>> now) there's nothing you can do to it to save power under
Tomasz,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
>
> On 24.06.2014 00:27, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> I'm
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> So I guess in this case the truly correct way to handle it is:
>>
>> 1. i2c controller should have Runtime PM even though (as per the code
>> now) there's nothing you can do to it to save power under normal
>> circumstances. So the
On 24.06.2014 00:27, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Doug Anderson writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
>>> callbacks. I can see a call to clk_prepare_enable() there
On 24.06.2014 00:19, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Doug Anderson writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
>>> callbacks. I can see a call to clk_prepare_enable() there which needs to
>>>
Doug Anderson writes:
> Kevin,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>
>>> Kevin,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson writes:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman
Doug Anderson writes:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
>> callbacks. I can see a call to clk_prepare_enable() there which needs to
>> acquire a mutex.
>
> Nice catch, thanks! :)
>
> OK,
Tomasz,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On 21.06.2014 01:53, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>>
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Doug,
Tomasz,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21.06.2014 01:53, Doug Anderson wrote:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
[...]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
callbacks. I can see a call to clk_prepare_enable() there which needs to
acquire a mutex.
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson
On 24.06.2014 00:19, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
[...]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
callbacks. I can see a call to
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
[...]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
callbacks. I
On 24.06.2014 00:27, Doug Anderson wrote:
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
[...]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure noirq is going to work
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
So I guess in this case the truly correct way to handle it is:
1. i2c controller should have Runtime PM even though (as per the code
now) there's nothing you can do to it to save power under normal
circumstances.
Tomasz,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24.06.2014 00:27, Doug Anderson wrote:
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
[...]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
So I guess in this case the truly correct way to handle it is:
1. i2c controller should have Runtime PM even though (as per the code
now) there's nothing you can do to
Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com writes:
On 24.06.2014 00:27, Doug Anderson wrote:
Kevin,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
[...]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21.06.2014 01:53, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>
>>> Kevin,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson writes:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Doug Anderson writes:
>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Hi Doug,
>>>
>>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Doug Anderson writes:
Doug Anderson writes:
> Kevin,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Doug Anderson writes:
> The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> Doug Anderson writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>>
The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
"noirq" variants. However
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson writes:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Doug Anderson writes:
>>
>>> The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
>>> "noirq" variants. However during review feedback it was moved to
>>> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
noirq variants. However during review feedback it was
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
The original code for the exynos i2c
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43
On 21.06.2014 01:53, Doug Anderson wrote:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson
Kevin,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Doug Anderson writes:
>
>> The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
>> "noirq" variants. However during review feedback it was moved to
>> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no
Doug Anderson writes:
> The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
> "noirq" variants. However during review feedback it was moved to
> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no
> longer actually "noirq" (despite functions named
>
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
noirq variants. However during review feedback it was moved to
SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no
longer actually noirq (despite functions named
Kevin,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
noirq variants. However during review feedback it was moved to
SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone
The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
"noirq" variants. However during review feedback it was moved to
SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no
longer actually "noirq" (despite functions named
exynos5_i2c_suspend_noirq and
The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
noirq variants. However during review feedback it was moved to
SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without anyone noticing that it meant we were no
longer actually noirq (despite functions named
exynos5_i2c_suspend_noirq and
36 matches
Mail list logo
