lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/10 v6] PM / Domains: Don't stop wakeup devices during system sleep transitions
    Date
    On Friday, July 01, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Friday, July 01, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
    > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
    ...
    > > The decision of whether or not to clock gate and/or power gate based on
    > > wakeup capabilies has to be made somewhere (and in fact is already made
    > > by existing code.) But IMO, that decision should only be made where
    > > wakeup capabilies are known, so that sensible decisions (for power
    > > management) can be made.
    > >
    > > Until there is a way in the generic code to distinguish between the
    > > various ways a device can wakeup, this decision should be left up to the
    > > code that knows how.
    >
    > OK, so I suppose your suggestion is to drop the patch and let the
    > .stop_device() and .power_off() PM domain callbacks to hand

    That should have been "handle".

    > that, is this correct?

    Anyway, neither .stop_device(), nor .power_off() can make such decisions,
    because they are used for both runtime PM and system suspend, so they shouldn't
    do system suspend-specific checks.

    So the only way forward I can see is to add a special PM domain callback,
    say .active_wakeup(), that will return "true" if the device is to be left
    active if wakeup-enabled. So the check you don't like will become
    something like:

    if (device_may_wakeup(dev) && genpd->active_wakeup
    && genpd->active_wakeup(dev))
    return 0;

    Would that be better?

    Rafael


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-01 01:27    [W:0.023 / U:29.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site