[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1308061719440.930-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:21:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>
cc: "rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>, "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sl811h_suspend() and PM_EVENT_PRETHAW state handling
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Shuah Khan wrote:
> With the dev_pm_ops model, drivers have to provide interfaces for each
> one of these states.
No, they don't. They can leave out interfaces if they want.
> In this case, there will be a conflict since
> pm_op() treats this state as freeze where as the driver wants to do
> treat it as a suspend/hibernate. In the case of legacy pm_ops, state is
> passed in as a parameter and driver could take special action if need
> be, based on the state, however in dev_pm_ops model, state is not passed
> in. Instead it is handled with state specific pm_ops interfaces.
>
> For example, if this driver were to be converted to dev_pm_ops, it would
> require a freeze interface which will call sl811h_bus_suspend(). Once
> that is done, PM_EVENT_PRETHAW will be mapped to freeze() ops and
> sl811h_bus_suspend() will be called instead of port_power(sl811, 0);
>
> What I am getting at is, there is no provision to handle the special
> case for PM_EVENT_PRETHAW like in the case of this driver when using
> dev_pm_ops.
Okay. So what?
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