[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160910133145.GA29744@wunner.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:31:45 +0200
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 3/7] PM / sleep: Make async suspend/resume of
devices use device links
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:28:33PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Make the device suspend/resume part of the core system
> suspend/resume code use device links to ensure that supplier
> and consumer devices will be suspended and resumed in the right
> order in case of async suspend/resume.
>
> The idea, roughly, is to use dpm_wait() to wait for all consumers
> before a supplier device suspend and to wait for all suppliers
> before a consumer device resume.
For devices with a parent/child relationship, if the child does not
utilize direct_complete, the parent is not allowed to utilize it
either and is runtime resumed upon system sleep.
Don't we need the same for supplier/consumer relationships?
The code enforcing this is in __device_suspend() and looks like this:
if (parent) {
spin_lock_irq(&parent->power.lock);
dev->parent->power.direct_complete = false;
if (dev->power.wakeup_path
&& !dev->parent->power.ignore_children)
dev->parent->power.wakeup_path = true;
spin_unlock_irq(&parent->power.lock);
}
I guess we need to iterate over the suppliers here and execute
the block for each of them.
Thanks,
Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists