Message-ID: <1329378119.28581.34.camel@rui.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:41:59 +0800
From:	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] PM / Runtime: Introduce flag can_power_off

On 二, 2012-02-14 at 23:39 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > On 一, 2012-02-13 at 20:38 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 13, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Lin Ming wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Introduce flag can_power_off in device structure to support runtime
> > > > > power off/on.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Note that, for a specific device driver,
> > > > > "support runtime power off/on" means that the driver .runtime_suspend
> > > > > callback needs to
> > > > > 1) save all the context so that it can restore the device back to the previous
> > > > >    working state after powered on.
> > > > > 2) set can_power_off flag to tell the driver model that it's ready for power off.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The following example shows how this works.
> > > > > 
> > > > > device A
> > > > >  |---------|
> > > > >  v         v
> > > > > device B  device C
> > > > > 
> > > > > A is the parent of device B and device C, and device A/B/C shares the
> > > > > same power logic
> > > > > (Only device A knows how to turn on/off the power).
> > > > > 
> > > > > In order to power off A, B, C at runtime,
> > > > > 1) device B and device C should support runtime power off
> > > > >    (runtime suspended with can_power_off flag set)
> > > > > 2) pm idle request for device A is fired by runtime PM core.
> > > > > 3) in device A .runtime_suspend callback, it tries to set can_power_off flag.
> > > > > 4) if succeed, it means all its children have been ready for power off
> > > > >    and it can turn off the power at any time.
> > > > > 5) if failed, it means at least one of its children does not support runtime
> > > > >    power off, thus the power can not be turned off.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure if this is really the right approach.  What you're trying 
> > > > to do is implement two different low-power states, basically D3hot and 
> > > > D3cold.  Currently the runtime PM core doesn't support such things; all 
> > > > it knows about is low power and full power.
> > > 
> > > I'd rather say all it knows about is "suspended" and "active", which mean
> > > "the device is not processing I/O" and "the device may be processing I/O",
> > > respectively.  A "suspended" device may or may not be in a low-power state,
> > > but the runtime PM core doesn't care about that.
> > > 
> > yes, I know that.
> > 
> > > > Before doing an ad-hoc implementation, it would be best to step back
> > > > and think about other subsystems.  Other sorts of devices may well have
> > > > multiple low-power states.  What's the best way for this to be
> > > > supported by the PM core?
> > > 
> > > Well, I honestly don't think there's any way they all can be covered at the
> > > same time and that's why we chose to support only "suspended" and "active"
> > > as defined above.
> > 
> > > The handling of multiple low-power states must be
> > > implemented outside of the runtime PM core (like in the PCI core, for example).
> > 
> > Surely I'd prefer to implement it in the bus code, :), but the problem
> > is that several buses maybe involved at the same time.
> > Let's take ZPODD for example,
> > ZPODD is attached to a SATA port. Only SATA port knows that it can be
> > runtime powered off, because its ACPI node has _PR3._OFF.
> > But when ATA layer code tries to put SATA port to D3_COLD at runtime,it
> > must make sure all the devices/drivers in the same power domain are
> > ready for power off, and in this case, we need to get this info from
> > SCSI layer.
> 
> Then you need to get it from there.  I know that this is a difficult problem,

Yeah, I have thought about this for quite a while before, there ARE
several ways to do this, but these need a lot of changes in bus code, at
least for the buses that support device runtime D3 (off) by ACPI.

Lets also take SATA port and ZPODD for example,
proposal one,
1) introduce scsi_can_power_off and ata_can_power_off.
2) sr driver set scsi_can_power_off bit and scsi layer is aware of this,
thus the scsi host can set this bit as well.
3) in the .runtime_suspend callback of ata port, it knows that its scsi
host interface can be powered off, thus it invokes ata_can_power_off to
tell the ata layer.

proposal two,
introduce a platform callback for each bus.
And it is invoked immediately after the scsi_driver->runtime_suspend
being invoked in scsi_bus->runtime_suspend.
The platform callback checks the scsi lower power state of the
scsi_device and choose a compatible ACPI D-state for the device.
The decision of whether to use ACPI D3 (off) or not is made in the
platform callback.

what do you think?

> have been working on a similar one for several months now. :-)

That's why generic power domain is introduced?
Can you tell me what's your idea please?
It would be GREAT if you can share your experience on this.

thanks,
rui

--
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