lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Power domains for platform bus type
    Date
    "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:

    >> Also, what is the use case for having 2 sets of power_domain ops? My
    >> gut tells me that you'd only want to do post ops on the
    >> {freeze,suspend,poweroff} path and pre ops on the {resume,thaw,restore}
    >> path. It seems overly engineered to me, but I may be missing
    >> something fundamental.
    >
    > Well, that's a part of the RFC, actually. :-)
    >
    > For the subsystems I've worked with (PCI, ACPI, PNP to some extent) one set
    > would be sufficient, but I don't know of every possible use case.

    For the on-chip SoC devices we're managing with OMAP, we're currently
    only using one set: post ops on [runtime_]suspend and pre ops on
    [runtime_]resume.

    However, I could imagine (at least conceptually) using the pre ops on
    suspend to do some constraints checking and/or possibly some
    management/notification of dependent devices. Another possiblity
    (although possibly racy) would be using the pre ops on suspend to
    initiate some high-latency operations.

    I guess the main problem with two sets is wasted space. e.g, if I move
    OMAP to this (already hacking on it) there will be only 2 functions used
    in post ops: [runtime_]suspend() and 2 used in pre ops [runtime_]_resume().

    Kevin



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-02-01 00:45    [W:0.049 / U:29.828 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site