[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200703290026.18555.maximlevitsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:26:18 +0200
From: Maxim <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de, linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, jgarzik@...ox.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [3/6] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions
On Wednesday 28 March 2007 22:42:00 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 28 March 2007 9:38 am, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > It's a *device*, dammit. It should save and resume like one (probably as a
> > > system device). The "set_mode()" etc stuff is at a completely different
> > > (higher) conceptual level.
> >
> > Agreed, except about "probably as a system device".
> >
> > Last I checked, there was no good reason to use sysdev suspend()/resume()
> > rather than platform_device suspend_late()/early_resume(). Which more
> > or less means no good reason to use sysdev in new code...
>
> I won't disagree - it might well be much nicer to just show it in the
> "real" device tree. I'm not 100% sure where in the tree it would go,
> though. It should probably be "inside" the root entry, before any of the
> PCI buses. It's generally what we've used those "system device" things
> for, but I agree that it would be better to just make system devices show
> up early on the regular device list than it is to have them be special
> cases.
>
> Bit I think that's a separate (and fairly small) issue compared to the
> "don't use the clocksource infrastructure as a make-believe suspend/resume
> mechanism" problem that Maxim's patch had.
>
> (Maxim, don't take that the wrong way - I think your analysis and patch
> were great, I just think another organization would be better)
Exactly, I agree completely
I said that my patch was a temporary fix, and I agree that the best way is to create a new system device
and use its suspend/resume hooks to bring HPET back to life on resume.
>
> > Also, making HPET use the legacy mode seems like a step backwards.
>
> I don't think that's actually "legacy" in any sense but the interrupt
> delivery, where the "legacy mode" bit is not so much that the HPET itself
> is "legacy" but that it *replaces* legacy devices.
>
> But I may have misunderstood the thing. I'm an old fart, so I know the old
> timers much better than I know the new ones ;). Somebody feel free to hit
> me with the clue-2x4.
>
> Linus
>
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists