[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200906110115.30729.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:15:30 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Linux-pm mailing list" <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 23:31:13 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > > +/**
> > > + * pm_check_children - Check if all children of a device have been
> > > suspended. + * @dev: Device to check.
> > > + *
> > > + * Returns 0 if all children of the device have been suspended or
> > > -EBUSY + * otherwise.
> > > + */
> >
> > We might want to do a runtime suspend even if the device's children
> > aren't already suspended. For example, you could suspend a link while
> > leaving the device on the other end of the link at full power --
> > especially if powering down the device is slow but changing the link's
> > power level is fast.
>
> Well, this means that the dependencies between devices in the device tree
> are pretty much useless for the run-time PM as far as the core is
> concerned. In which case, why did you mention them at all?
Some bussystems need this constraint others don't or only for some nodes.
We need a way to communicate this to the core.
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