Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Documentation: Ask driver writers to provide suspend/resume support | Date | Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:57:58 +0100 |
| |
Hi,
On Saturday, 17 February 2007 12:40, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > +PM support: Since Linux is used on many portable and desktop systems, your > > > > + driver is likely to be used on such a system and therefore it > > > > + should support basic power management by implementing, if > > > > + necessary, the .suspend and .resume methods used during the > > > > + system-wide suspend and resume transitions. You should verify > > > > + that your driver correctly handles the suspend and resume, but > > > > + if you are unable to ensure that, please at least define the > > > > + .suspend method returning the -ENOSYS ("Function not > > > > + implemented") error. > > > > > > Perhaps pointer to Documentation/power/drivers-testing.txt would be > > > useful here? > > > > Okay, maybe something like this: > > > > "Please see Documentation/power/drivers-testing.txt for the driver testing > > instructions." > > > > as the last sentence? > > Looks ok. (BTW you have my ACK).
Thanks.
> > > > +Unfortunately, to effectively test the support for the system-wide suspend and > > > > +resume transitions in a driver, it is necessary to suspend and resume a fully > > > > +functional system with this driver loaded. Moreover, that should be done many > > > > +times, preferably many times in a row, and separately for the suspend to disk > > > > +(STD) and the suspend to RAM (STR) transitions, because each of these cases > > > > +involves different ordering of operations and different interactions with the > > > > +machine's BIOS. > > > > > > Hmm, actually it is nice to mix STR + STD, too... and not sure if > > > "many" is right word... It sounds scary :-). > > > > "a couple of"? > > Sounds good. > > > > +II. Testing the driver > > > > + > > > > +Once you have resolved the suspend/resume-related problems with your test system > > > > +without the new driver, you are ready to test it: > > > > + > > > > +1. Build the driver as a module, load it and try the STD in the test mode > > > > +(cf. 1a)). > > > > + > > > > +2. Compile the driver directly into the kernel and try the STD in the test mode > > > > +(cf. 1a)). > > > > + > > > > +3. Build the driver as a module, load it and attempt to suspend to disk in the > > > > +"reboot", "shutdown" and "platform" modes (cf. 1). > > > > + > > > > +4. Compile the driver directly into the kernel and attempt to suspend to disk in > > > > +the "reboot", "shutdown" and "platform" modes (cf. 1). > > > > + > > > > +5. Build the driver as a module, load it and attempt to run s2ram (cf. 2). > > > > + > > > > +6. Compile the driver directly into the kernel and attempt to run s2ram (cf. 2). > > > > + > > > > +Each of the above tests should be repeated several times and if any of them > > > > +fails, the driver cannot be regarded as suspend/resume-safe. > > > > > > Maybe reorder the tests so that poor submitter will not have to do 3 > > > kernel compiles? > > > > I thought he would figure out that there's more efficient way. ;-) > > He probably will... but it reads strangely. > > 5. Build the driver as a module, load it and attempt to run s2ram. Then > repeat with driver build-in? > > Hmm, and maybe driver loaded/build in is not a difference for s2ram?
Good point. :-)
Greetings, Rafael - 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/
| |