> > > > Are you sure its unneeded? What if someone attempts to suspend the
> > > > system when a transaction is running?
> > > That's exactly my question. I think the machine will suspend and the
> > > transaction fail. So no suspend callback isn't optimal, but maybe OK?!
> >
> > Having failures just because suspend happened at wrong time is
> > bad. .suspend() should just wait for end of transaction.
>
> I'm not sure what situation could actually occur that would suspend the
> system in the middle of an I2C transaction. If an I2C transaction was
> started and the CPU was suspended, this would appear to be a problem
> outside the I2C driver itself. Would other I2C drivers have this similar
> problem?
Well, can the i2c transaction sleep? If so, suspend probably can come
in the middle.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
