[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201203150019.22379.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:19:22 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware loader: don't cancel _nowait requests when helper is not yet available
On Thursday, March 15, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 03/13/12 13:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > All of those use cases are in fact of the "wait for user space to be thawed
> > > and then load the firmware" type, which I believe may be handled without
> > > changing that code.
> > >
> > > Why don't you make your kthread freezable, for one example?
> > >
> > > Why don't you use a freezable workqueue instead?
> > >
> >
> > If we put it on the freezable workqueue or make it a freezable thread
> > will it work?
>
> That depends on what exactly you want to achieve, which isn't entirely clear
> to me at this point.
>
> > In my scenario a wakeup interrupt comes in that wakes us up from
> > suspend. Within that wakeup handler a work item is scheduled to the
> > freezable workqueue. That work item then calls request_firmware().
>
> That should work.
I would consider using suspend/resume notifiers, however.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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