lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch update] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices
Date
On Monday 15 June 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Below is the current version of my "run-time PM for I/O devices" patch.
> > > >
> > > > I've done my best to address the comments received during the recent
> > > > discussions, but at the same time I've tried to make the patch only contain
> > > > the most essential things. For this reason, for example, the sysfs interface
> > > > is not there and it's going to be added in a separate patch.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if you want me to change anything in this patch or to add
> > > > anything new to it. [Magnus, I remember you wanted something like
> > > > ->runtime_wakeup() along with ->runtime_idle(), but I'm not sure it's really
> > > > necessary. Please let me know if you have any particular usage scenario for
> > > > it.]
> >
> > Appended is an update of the patch addressing the today's comments from Magnus.
>
> This is really looking very good. I'll do a more detailed review
> later. (In particular, I have not checked the details of the rather
> intricate state machine transitions.) For now, a couple of things
> struck my eye:
>
> Shouldn't the calls to complete() really be complete_all()? There
> might be more than one thread waiting for a suspend or resume callback
> to finish.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

> Since pm_runtime_resume() takes care of powering up the parent, there's
> no need for pm_request_resume() to worry about it also.

But still it won't hurt to do it IMO, because the parents are then going to be
resumed before our pm_runtime_resume() is called.

> The documentation should mention that the runtime_suspend method is
> supposed to enable remote wakeup if it as available and if
> device_may_wakeup(dev) is true.

Well, I thought that was obvious. :-)

Best,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-16 01:25    [W:0.134 / U:9.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site