[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912051648520.3560@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 16:52:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > It all looks terminally broken: you force async suspend for all PCI
> > drivers, even when it makes no sense.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. The async suspend is not
> forced, it just tells the PM core that it can execute PCI suspend/resume
> callbacks in parallel as long as the devices in question don't depend on each
> other.
That's exactly what I mean by forcing async suspend/resume.
You don't know the ordering rules for PCi devices. Multi-function PCI
devices commonly share registers - they're on the same chip, after all.
And even when the _hardware_ is totally independent, we often have
discovery rules and want to initialize in order because different drivers
will do things like unregister entirely on suspend, and then re-register
on resume.
Imagine the mess when two ethernet devices randomly end up coming up with
different names (eth0/eth1) depending on subtle timing issues.
THAT is why we do things in order. Asynchronous programming is _hard_.
Just deciding that "all PCI devices can always be resumed and suspended
asynchronously" is a much MUCH bigger decision than you seem to have
even realized.
Linus
--
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