[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1516837.oN5cf7KDad@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 23:42:01 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flag to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices
On Thursday, May 08, 2014 05:20:43 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > Wait a minute. Following ->runtime_suspend(), you are going to call
> > > > ->suspend() and then ->runtime_resume()? That doesn't seem like what
> > > > you really want; a ->suspend() call should always have a matching
> > > > ->resume().
> > >
> > > Yes, it should, but I didn't see any other way to do that.
> >
> > Actually, that's kind of easy to resolve. :-)
> >
> > When ->suspend() leaves power.leave_runtime_suspended set, the PM core can
> > simply skip the early/late and noirq callbacks and then call ->resume()
> > that will be responsible for using whatever is necessary to resume the
> > device.
> >
> > And perhaps the flag should be called something different then, like
> > direct_resume (meaning go directly for ->resume() without executing
> > the intermediate callbacks)?
>
> In light of what I wrote earlier, it should be okay for the ->prepare()
> callback to be responsible for setting leave_runtime_suspended. Then
> there will be no need to call either ->suspend() or ->resume().
Hmm. OK, let's try that.
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