From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Stezenbach Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] PM / ACPI / i2c: Runtime PM aware system sleep handling Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:53:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20170829135341.moanebdmbdz3ajjm@sig21.net> References: <1503499329-28834-1-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <4245176.X6JjkhnUAM@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170829102927.5lpjkfj2jbtpxadm@sig21.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Wolfram Sang , Len Brown , ACPI Devel Maling List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Kevin Hilman , Jarkko Nikula , Andy Shevchenko , Mika Westerberg , Jisheng Zhang , John Stultz , Guodong Xu , Sumit Semwal , Haojian Zhuang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 01:44:11PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Did you try out my series (v2) if that could fix this problem in a > more flexible manner? > > In other words, is it fine if the device remains runtime PM enabled > during the entire device_suspend() phase, and also not being suspended > until ->suspend_late()? I tried to try but I also had some test patches applied and it hung up on suspend but I ran out of time to check why... I intend to try again soon. Johannes From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: js@sig21.net (Johannes Stezenbach) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:53:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] PM / ACPI / i2c: Runtime PM aware system sleep handling In-Reply-To: References: <1503499329-28834-1-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <4245176.X6JjkhnUAM@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170829102927.5lpjkfj2jbtpxadm@sig21.net> Message-ID: <20170829135341.moanebdmbdz3ajjm@sig21.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 01:44:11PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Did you try out my series (v2) if that could fix this problem in a > more flexible manner? > > In other words, is it fine if the device remains runtime PM enabled > during the entire device_suspend() phase, and also not being suspended > until ->suspend_late()? I tried to try but I also had some test patches applied and it hung up on suspend but I ran out of time to check why... I intend to try again soon. Johannes