[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0803061233460.7892-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:40:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Make PM core handle device registrations
concurrent with suspend/hibernation
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I thought of one more thing you might want to add: device_pm_add()
> > doesn't handle the case where dev->parent is NULL.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> If dev->parent is NULL, we get into the "successful" branch where the device is
> added to dpm_active. Do you think we should add any extra handling of this
> case?
If a device is registered after dpm_suspend() has returned, the
device won't be suspended properly before the system goes to sleep.
If the device has a parent then you're okay, because the parent must
already be suspended and so device_pm_add() will fail. But if the
device doesn't have a parent then device_pm_add() will succeed, which
you don't want.
> > You could put in that static "all_devices_sleeping" flag, which gets set at
> > the end of dpm_suspend() and cleared at the start of dpm_resume().
>
> Well, I don't think it's necessary. dpm_active is empty in that case and
> we can use the list_empty(&dpm_active) check instead.
What would happen the very first time the system registers a device
during startup?
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