From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751975Ab3FYG6S (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 02:58:18 -0400 Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:30109 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751396Ab3FYG6R (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 02:58:17 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 50.131.214.131 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+iMiwyiSNgqCdImmRoRKj5 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:58:11 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Linus Walleij Cc: Grygorii Strashko , Kevin Hilman , Hebbar Gururaja , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux-OMAP , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [RFC] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: add pinctrl handling Message-ID: <20130625065811.GZ5523@atomide.com> References: <1371826990-25820-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Linus Walleij [130624 05:13]: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Grygorii Strashko > wrote: > > > Hence, add pinctrl handling in omap_device core: > > 1) on PM runtime resume > > - switch pinctrl state to "default" (todo: "active") > > 2) on PM runtime suspend > > - switch pinctrl state to "idle" > > 3) during system wide suspend > > - switch pinctrl state to "sleep" or "idle" if omap_device core disables device > > - switch pinctrl state to "sleep" if device is disabled already Do you need a separate setting for "idle" and "sleep", or are they the same? > > 4) during system wide resume > > - switch pinctrl state to "default" (todo: "active") if omap_device core has > > disabled device during suspend > > - switch pinctrl state to "idle" if device was already disabled before suspend > > I don't understand step 4. > > I get the creeps about whether the system is runtime suspended > or runtime resumed when we come to resume proper, so I need > Kevin to have a look at this. > > Apart from that it looks good. > > Stephen and Tony are trying to figure out the details of whether "active" > is necessary or not in a related thread I think. Yes we should have that sorted out over next few weeks, so let's just wait a little while on all these dynamic remuxing patches to avoid churn. Regards, Tony