On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 00:51:34 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the
> > > > drivers are already suspended, right?
> > >
> > > Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm.
> > > They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them these
> > > operations mean saving/restoring state.
> > > So for these devices implementing autosuspend makes no sense.
> > > They would sensibly do only idle/busy detection.
> >
> > Yep... Let's call busy/idle detection and save/restore state
> > "autosuspend" for those devices. It does not save any power, but it
> > can be viewed as "kind-of-suspend". (No, I do not have this kind of
> > details ready).
>
> Well, you probably would have to walk through all devices and check
> all devices are either suspended or can be suspended. That would mean
> struct device has to be extended to show common attributes.
>
> But what's wrong with calling suspend() the conventional way once you've
> decided to go into sleepy mode?
I'm not sure if it can be done in non-racy way. It is different from
"conventional" suspend(): you can still have userland requests after
this suspend(), and you should abort auto-sleep if you get one. (As
opposed to blocking in system suspend case).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
