On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 05:47:48PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:05:33PM -0600, Josh Cartwright wrote:

quoted

+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
+static int spmi_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct spmi_device *sdev = to_spmi_device(dev);
+	int err;
+
+	err = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	return spmi_command_sleep(sdev);

shouldn't this too calls be swapped ? I mean, some pm_runtime
implementations could be gating clocks at the driver's
->runtime_suspend() callback.

Perhaps.  I had added the explicit SLEEP/WAKEUP commands to
suspend()/resume(), but now I'm thinking issuing these commands should
not be the responsibility of the core, since the semantics of the
SLEEP/ACTIVE state aren't well defined in general (each
implementation/slave defines what, if anything, these states mean).

Fortunately, there are no users yet, so this is a painless change. :)

Thanks for taking a look.

  Josh

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation