From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: balbi@ti.com (Felipe Balbi) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:30:38 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] gpio-vbus: support disabling D+ pullup on suspend In-Reply-To: <4E01FB9C.7020205@gmail.com> References: <1308745217-10883-1-git-send-email-dbaryshkov@gmail.com> <20110622132314.GG23598@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110622140127.GB27654@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110622142006.GC27654@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4E01FB9C.7020205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110622143037.GD27654@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 06:26:36PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > >You could use osme VBUS IRQ to toggle a driver flag which, if true, > >would return -EBUSY on suspend(). > > I'm more and more thinking that this handling this -EBUSY isn't a > task of gpio-vbus, but rather of some higher level driver. I'd assume > that > if I hit this point, all previous drivers (which depend on this > transceiver, so registered later) permit suspending at this moment, > so everything is OK :) the thing is that today we don't have the "higher level driver" see that the OTG/transceiver framework (if you can call it a framework) is just a static global pointer which people set. So, you need to have per-transceiver solutions, unfortunately :-( > >>I agree with you generally, but I'd like to hear any suggestions. > > > >I'm not sure how to solve this, but OTOH the original code already did > >this, just on a different way, right ? > > Yes. pxa27x udc driver disables D+ pullup on suspend and that's the > behaviour asked from me by Robert Jarzmik in comments to first > cleanup patch serie for pxa27x UDC driver. ok... so, go ahead but keep in mind you could end up in a bad situation ;-) -- balbi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: