Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Sep 2015 00:25:52 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend | From | Ulf Hansson <> |
| |
On 8 September 2015 at 22:56, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 01:10 +0000, Tirdea, Irina wrote: > > [cut] > >>> this would work except for adding a sysfs attribute that would trigger >>> a runtime suspend while ignoring usage count. Would that be a >>> better direction? >> >> No. If we want this at all, we need a new callback to notify drivers >> that user space is temporarily uninterested in a device. And the reverse >> of course. >> The power model is good. We must not assume that devices can be >> suspended at will. If we do this at all, we ought to see it as giving >> strong hints to drivers when a device can be considered idle. > > This is a good summary in my view. > > The only thing we can add, realistically, is an interface for user > space to "kick" drivers to check if the devices they handle may be > suspended at this point (or to run their ->runtime_idle callbacks > IOW). > > That would be quite similar to autosuspend except that the "kick" will > come from user space rather than from a timer function in the kernel.
Apologize for interrupting the discussion!
Unless I miss the point, I assumes the above is somewhat already achievable via sysfs when changing the value of the auto-suspend timeout, since it triggers a call to pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay()...
Also, according to the discussion so far, it seems like we are on agreement that we should really think twice when considering to extend the sysfs interface for runtime PM.
From the change-log/description to $subject patch, I fail to understand *why* the regular runtime PM *autosuspend* feature isn't sufficient. Perhaps Irina can elaborate more on the use case, to help me get a better understanding of the issue!?
Kind regards Uffe
| |