[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190814084014.GB52127@atomide.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 01:40:14 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Tri Vo <trong@...roid.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "PM / wakeup: Show wakeup sources stats in sysfs" causes boot
warnings
* Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> [691231 23:00]:
> I also notice that device_set_wakeup_capable() has a check to see if the
> device is registered yet and it skips creating sysfs entries for the
> device if it isn't created in sysfs yet. Why? Just so it can be called
> before the device is created? I guess the same logic is handled by
> dpm_sysfs_add() if the device is registered after calling
> device_set_wakeup_*().
Hmm just guessing.. It's maybe because drivers can enable and disable
the wakeup capability at any point for example like driver/net drivers
do based on WOL etc?
> There's two approaches I see:
>
> 1) Do a similar check for device_set_wakeup_enable() and skip
> adding the wakeup class until dpm_sysfs_add().
>
> 2) Find each case where this happens and only call wakeup APIs
> on the device after the device is added.
>
> I guess it's better to let devices have wakeup modified on them before
> they're registered with the device core?
I think we should at least initially handle case #1 above as multiple
places otherwise seem to break. Then maybe we could add a warning to
help fix all the #2 cases if needed?
Regards,
Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists