[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901082314.52840.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:14:52 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: philipl@...rt.org
Cc: "linux kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
sdhci-devel@...t.drzeus.cx, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
"Pierre Ossman" <drzeus@...eus.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ricoh_mmc: Use suspend/resume_noirq (v2) (resend)
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, philipl@...rt.org wrote:
> If ricoh_mmc suspends before sdhci_pci, it will pull the card
> out from under the controller, which could leave the system in
> a very confused state.
Does it really happen? That depends on which of them is registered first.
> Using suspend/resume_noirq ensures that sdhci_pci suspends first
> and resumes second.
Well, I'm not sure if this is the best approach, but I don't know what the
dependencies between the devices are, so can you please explain that
to me?
That said, if you want to suspend-resume ricoh_mmc with interrupts disabled,
please use the legacy PCI .suspend_late() and .resume_early() callbacks for
that, since in the new framework the core will carry out some standard PM
operations in addition to your .suspend_noirq() and .resume_noirq(). It may
not be what you want in this case, though.
Thanks,
Rafael
> Signed-off-by: Philip Langdale <philipl@...rt.org>
> Acked-by: Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>
> ---
>
> ricoh_mmc.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/ricoh_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/ricoh_mmc.c
> index 1837719..b4958a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/ricoh_mmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/ricoh_mmc.c
> @@ -194,10 +194,14 @@ static void __devexit ricoh_mmc_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> pci_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> }
>
> -static int ricoh_mmc_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state) +static int
> ricoh_mmc_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev)
> {
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL;
> struct pci_dev *fw_dev = NULL;
>
> + pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> + BUG_ON(pdev == NULL);
> +
> fw_dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> BUG_ON(fw_dev == NULL);
>
> @@ -208,10 +212,14 @@ static int ricoh_mmc_suspend(struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int ricoh_mmc_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +static int ricoh_mmc_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
> {
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL;
> struct pci_dev *fw_dev = NULL;
>
> + pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> + BUG_ON(pdev == NULL);
> +
> fw_dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> BUG_ON(fw_dev == NULL);
>
> @@ -222,13 +230,17 @@ static int ricoh_mmc_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static struct dev_pm_ops ricoh_mmc_pm_opts = {
> + .suspend_noirq = ricoh_mmc_suspend_noirq,
> + .resume_noirq = ricoh_mmc_resume_noirq,
> +};
> +
> static struct pci_driver ricoh_mmc_driver = {
> .name = DRIVER_NAME,
> .id_table = pci_ids,
> .probe = ricoh_mmc_probe,
> .remove = __devexit_p(ricoh_mmc_remove),
> - .suspend = ricoh_mmc_suspend,
> - .resume = ricoh_mmc_resume,
> + .driver.pm = &ricoh_mmc_pm_opts,
> };
>
> /*****************************************************************************\
>
> Rafael,
>
> Pierre asked that you take this patch into your tree because it depends on
> the new pm ops design.
--
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