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 n
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 r
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
c
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 w
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
>>> a
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, lo
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,
>
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 11:43
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 the
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 duri
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 n
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
> exynos5_i2c_susp
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 exynos5_i2c_resume_n
18 matches
Mail list logo
