[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/6] PM / Runtime: Introduce flag can_power_off
Hi, Alan,

On 一, 2012-02-13 at 15:41 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I'm not sure if this is really the right approach. What you're trying
> > > to do is implement two different low-power states, basically D3hot and
> > > D3cold. Currently the runtime PM core doesn't support such things; all
> > > it knows about is low power and full power.
> >
> > I'd rather say all it knows about is "suspended" and "active", which mean
> > "the device is not processing I/O" and "the device may be processing I/O",
> > respectively. A "suspended" device may or may not be in a low-power state,
> > but the runtime PM core doesn't care about that.
> Yes, okay. We can say that this patch tries to implement two different
> "suspended" states, basically "low power" and "power off" (or D3hot and
> D3cold).

> > > Before doing an ad-hoc implementation, it would be best to step back
> > > and think about other subsystems. Other sorts of devices may well have
> > > multiple low-power states. What's the best way for this to be
> > > supported by the PM core?
> >
> > Well, I honestly don't think there's any way they all can be covered at the
> > same time and that's why we chose to support only "suspended" and "active"
> > as defined above. The handling of multiple low-power states must be
> > implemented outside of the runtime PM core (like in the PCI core, for example).
> That's the point. If this is to be implemented outside of the runtime
> PM core, should the patch be allowed to add new fields to struct
> dev_pm_info (which has to be shared among all subsystems)?
Surely it shouldn't in this case.

> Or to put it another way, if we do add new fields to struct dev_pm_info
> (like can_power_off) in order to help support multiple "suspended"
> states, shouldn't these new fields be such that they can be used by
> many different subsystems rather than being special for the
> full-power/no-power situation?
My opinion is that the concept of "no-power state" is unique for all
If any of them support this, they can use the routines without any


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-14 08:13    [W:0.098 / U:2.000 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site