[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1102141123370.1716-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:25:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Make system-wide PM and runtime PM handle
subsystems consistently
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>
> The code handling system-wide power transitions (eg. suspend-to-RAM)
> can in theory execute callbacks provided by the device's bus type,
> device type and class in each phase of the power transition. In
> turn, the runtime PM core code only calls one of those callbacks at
> a time, preferring bus type callbacks to device type or class
> callbacks and device type callbacks to class callbacks.
>
> It seems reasonable to make them both behave in the same way in that
> respect. Moreover, even though a device may belong to two subsystems
> (eg. bus type and device class) simultaneously, in practice power
> management callbacks for system-wide power transitions are always
> provided by only one of them (ie. if the bus type callbacks are
> defined, the device class ones are not and vice versa). Thus it is
> possible to modify the code handling system-wide power transitions
> so that it follows the core runtime PM code (ie. treats the
> subsystem callbacks as mutually exclusive).
>
> On the other hand, the core runtime PM code will choose to execute,
> for example, a runtime suspend callback provided by the device type
> even if the bus type's struct dev_pm_ops object exists, but the
> runtime_suspend pointer in it happens to be NULL. This is confusing,
> because it may lead to the execution of callbacks from different
> subsystems during different operations (eg. the bus type suspend
> callback may be executed during runtime suspend, while the device
> type callback will be executed during runtime resume).
>
> Make all of the power management code treat subsystem callbacks in
> a consistent way, such that:
> (1) If the device's bus type is defined (eg. dev->bus is not NULL)
> and its pm pointer is not NULL, the callbacks from dev->bus->pm
> will be used.
> (2) If dev->bus is NULL or dev->bus->pm is NULL, but the device's
> device type is defined (eg. dev->type is not NULL) and its pm
> pointer is not NULL, the callbacks from dev->type->pm will be
> used.
> (3) If dev->bus is NULL or dev->bus->pm is NULL and dev->type is
> NULL or dev->type->pm is NULL, the callbacks from dev->class->pm
> will be used provided that both dev->class and dev->class->pm
> are not NULL.
It looks okay, but I haven't tested it. Just one minor change needed
in the documentation:
> +All phases use bus, type, or class callbacks (that is, methods defined in
> +dev->bus->pm, dev->type->pm, or dev->class->pm). These callbacks are mutually
> +exclusive, so if the bus provides a struct dev_pm_ops object pointed to by its
> +pm field (i.e. both dev->bus and dev->bus->pm are defined), the callbacks
> +included in that object (i.e. dev->bus->pm) will be used. In turn, if the
s/In turn/Otherwise/
> +device type provides a struct dev_pm_ops object pointed to by its pm field
> +(i.e. both dev->type and dev->type->pm are defined), the PM core will used the
> +callbacks from that object (i.e. dev->type->pm). Finally, if the pm fields of
> +both the bus and device type objects are NULL (or those objects do not exist),
> +the callbacks provided by the class (that is, the callbacks from dev->class->pm)
> +will be used.
>
> These callbacks may in turn invoke device- or driver-specific methods stored in
> dev->driver->pm, but they don't have to.
Alan Stern
--
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