lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Solving suspend-level confusion
Date

> > Disks in general are an example (IDE beeing the one that is currently
> > implemented, but we'll probably have to do the same for SATA and SCSI
> > at one point), you want to spin them off (with proper cache flush
> > etc...) when suspending to RAM, while you don't when suspending to
> > disk, as you really don't want them to be spun up again right away to
> > write the suspend image.
>
> So suspend-to-RAM more or less matches PCI D3hot, and
> suspend-to-DISK matches PCI D3cold. If those power states
> were passed to the device suspend(), the disk driver could act
> appropriately. In my observation, D3cold was never passed
> down, it was always D3hot.

Maybe a better approach would be to describe the required features to
the drivers rather than encoding them in a single integer. Rather
like passing a request that states "lowest power level with device state
retained, must not do DMA, enable remote wake up"

[..]
> Though the PM core doesn't cooperate at all there. Neither the
> suspend nor the resume codepaths cope well with disconnect
> (and hence device removal), the PM core self-deadlocks since
> suspend/resume outcalls are done while holding the semaphore
> that device_pm_remove() needs, ugh.

Shouldn't we deal with this like a failed resume?

Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site