[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110215194824.GC7649@angua.secretlab.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:48:24 -0700
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
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 Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:10:06AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>
> This looks good, consistency between system and runtime PM is a great
> help to readability.
>
> Acked-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
Reasoning-sounds-sane-to: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
--
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