[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:56:34 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Fundamental flaw in system suspend, exposed by freezer removal
On Monday, 3 of March 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > Of course, it won't be necessary if the ->suspend_begin() methods are called
> > > > in an initial forward pass through dpm_active.
> > >
> > > Right. That would be simpler.
>
> Let's stick with that for now.
>
> What about on the resume side? Do you want to prevent child
> registrations until after end_sleep has run? Or would you be okay with
> allowing the resume method to register new children?
I think ->resume() can register new children. There's nothing wrong with
that from the core's standpoint.
> It should be safe to assume that drivers are smart enough to bring the device
> back to full power before looking for new children.
Well, it would be a bug not to do so.
> In fact, maybe we don't need an end_sleep method at all. There isn't
> any synchronization issue to worry about -- drivers aren't going to
> register their new children in a suspended state!
Agreed.
> > > > That's correct. Perhaps we should change device_add().
> > >
> > > I had a change like that in my version of the patch. It's excerpted
> > > below.
> >
> > Hm, I wonder why you didn't move dpm_sysfs_add() along with device_pm_add()?
>
> Because I didn't think of it. :-)
>
> > Perhaps it's better to include dpm_sysfs_add() into device_pm_add(), since we
> > are going the make the return a result anyway?
>
> Yes.
Okay, I'll prepare a patch for that, on top of the one introducing the
'sleeping' field into 'struct dev_pm_info' (posting in a while).
> > > > I thought ->suspend() would be mandatory, even if it's to be empty.
> > >
> > > There's no need for that. If it isn't implemented, treat it as though
> > > it was successful.
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure. Right now we have a problem with distinguishing drivers
> > that don't implement ->suspend() purposefully from the ones that just don't
> > support suspend/hibernation ...
> >
> > OTOH, since we are going to have a pointer to 'struct pm_ops', we can safely
> > assume that if it's not NULL, the driver writer knows what he's doing.
>
> That's reasonable. If a driver doesn't support PM then it won't have
> a pm_ops pointer.
Exactly.
The question remains what we're going to do with the drivers without pm_ops
pointers in the long run (in the short run we will use the legacy callbacks in
that cases, if defined).
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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