[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200906102338.35183.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:38:34 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
Am Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2009 21:27:56 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > What happens if the parent's parent is also suspended? It seems to me
> > that you must code this recursively.
>
> Hmm, I thought I did.
>
> [Looks]
>
> pm_request_resume(dev) will call pm_request_resume(dev->parent), if
> necessary, and that will call pm_request_resume(dev->parent->parent) and so
> on. Each of them will queue a work item and the one for the topmost parent
> will be queued first. So, the resume requests for all parents will be
> executed before the one for the device, due to the fact that the workqueue
> is singlethread.
Sneaky, I overlooked that.
> Well, there is a bug related to it, namely pm_autosuspend() may change the
> status to RPM_SUSPENDED after pm_request_resume() has changed it to
> RPM_WAKE, that needs fixing.
Ok, maybe this is related. You recurse if the parent isn't in RPM_ACTIVE.
But that is not enough. You must ensure that all the nodes higher up stay
in RPM_ACTIVE. It seems to me that you must go up until you find an
active node (or the root) and put it a blocked state.
Regards
Oliver
--
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