Understanding suspend() vs suspend_late() for I2c devices

From	Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Understanding suspend() vs suspend_late() for I2c devices
Date	2017-09-19 19:40 +0200
Message-ID	<uruF3-8nG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Hello folks,

I'm trying to understand the valid expectations from i2c drivers
standpoint, from suspend() callback vs suspend_late() callback. The
Documentation/power/devices.txt states that:

==================================================
For a number of devices it is convenient to split suspend into the
"quiesce device" and "save device state" phases, in which cases
suspend_late is meant to do the latter.
==================================================

1) So it seems that it is fair expectation from a driver, to be able
to access its own device and its registers in
suspend_late()/resume_early() call backs?

2) For the drivers that provide a controller to a bus (e.g.
i2c_adapter drivers), is it correct that they should make sure that
bus operation continues to stay OK even after their suspend() callback
is executed?(This is because the drivers for the downstream devices -
eg i2c_client drivers may want to talk to their device in *their*
suspend_late() callbacks). So bus operations should be suspended by
the adapter drivers only in their suspend_late() callback routines,
and not suspend() routines?

Thanks,

Rajat

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Understanding suspend() vs suspend_late() for I2c devices Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com> - 2017-09-19 19:40 +0200
  Re: Understanding suspend() vs suspend_late() for I2c devices "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-19 22:40 +0200

csiph-web