[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:12:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
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 Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 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).
While you're at it, could you add a field to indicate whether
begin_sleep() has been called? It would help prevent multiple calls to
that method when a race does occur, and it could be useful for drivers
as well.
> 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).
One possibility is to unbind those drivers at the start of a sleep
transition and reprobe them at the end. Another possibility is to
ignore the lack of PM support and hope it doesn't cause any problems.
Alan Stern
--
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