[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63d113bd-be64-beeb-114a-48081e920837@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:06:12 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: improve PM handling of PHY/MDIO
On 06/04/2018 02:48 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 10:33:36PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Current implementation of MDIO bus PM ops doesn't actually implement
>> bus-specific PM ops but just calls PM ops defined on a device level
>> what doesn't seem to be fully in line with the core PM model.
>>
>> When looking e.g. at __device_suspend() the PM core looks for PM ops
>> of a device in a specific order:
>> 1. device PM domain
>> 2. device type
>> 3. device class
>> 4. device bus
>>
>> I think it has good reason that there's no PM ops on device level.
>> The situation can be improved by modeling PHY's as device type of
>> a MDIO device. If for some other type of MDIO device PM ops are
>> needed, it could be modeled as struct device_type as well.
>
> Hi Heiner
>
> I tested that the files in /sys/class/bus/mdio/devices/* are still
> there. And also not there for MDIO devices which are not PHYs,
> e.g. Ethernet switches.
>
> I don't have any boards which do PM. So i cannot test suspend/resume.
>
> I also took a look at drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c. This is an MDIO switch
> which has PM operations. I don't think this change will break it.
I don't think so, but I will give it a spin on a board that has system
wide suspend/resume support. Might take a few hours.
>
> I would prefer a bit more testing, but i guess that is what -rc
> kernels are for.
>
> Tested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>
> Andrew
>
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists