On Mon 2009-11-16 15:30:00, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:31:36PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:58:58AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:54:47AM +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
Any chance someone from the PM side could comment on the issue below?
+static int fsi_runtime_nop(struct device *dev) +{
- /* Runtime PM callback shared between ->runtime_suspend()
* and ->runtime_resume(). Simply returns success.** This driver re-initializes all registers after* pm_runtime_get_sync() anyway so there is no need* to save and restore registers here.*/- return 0;
+}
This sets off alarm bells but it's perfectly reasonable, especially with platforms able to put things into a low power state with no explicit driver code now they can do power domain style things like SH. I've CCed in the PM folks since this seems like a perfectly reasonable use case which ought to be handled more nicely.
I believe that having few nop functions around the tree should not be huge problem. If it is, you can introduce one shared top function into the core... Pavel