[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200906111108.40785.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:08:40 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
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 Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2009 07:18:46 schrieb Magnus Damm:
> 3) When all devices in the power domain are suspended the bus code can
> turn off the power. The reason why I'd like to only autosuspend when
So you are saying that you have power dependencies independent
of the device tree?
> all devices are idle is simply that we don't get any power savings
> from the per device autosuspend() callbacks, only from turning off
> power to the entire per-domain. So bindly autosuspending and
> autoresuming devices is just pure overhead unless we know we can do it
> for all devices in the domain.
Why can't you do this within the framework? You simply suspend when
all a domain's devices have been autosuspended.
I suppose we could have a helper.
int pm_autosuspend_in_domain(struct device *dev)
{
int err;
mutex_lock(dev->power_domain);
if (! --dev->power_domain.active_devices)
err = dev->power_domain->power_down(dev->power_domain);
else
err = 0;
mutex_unlock(dev->power_domain);
return err;
}
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