On Thu 2013-12-05 17:21:50, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > This thread raises the question...
> >
> > Do we still need to have PM_RUNTIME apart from PM_SLEEP?
> >
> > What is the benefit of being able to build-in one one without the other?
> > If that benefit is n
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Len Brown wrote:
> This thread raises the question...
>
> Do we still need to have PM_RUNTIME apart from PM_SLEEP?
>
> What is the benefit of being able to build-in one one without the other?
> If that benefit is not significant, perhaps the time has come to
> replace them bo
This thread raises the question...
Do we still need to have PM_RUNTIME apart from PM_SLEEP?
What is the benefit of being able to build-in one one without the other?
If that benefit is not significant, perhaps the time has come to
replace them both with CONFIG_PM...
cheers,
-Len Brown, Intel Open
>
> That would be kind of OK, if the driver's .suspend_late() only invoked its own
> .runtime_suspend(), what you did below.
>
> But, in the Ulf's approach the driver calls .runtime_suspend() from
> its *subsystem* in the hope that it will all work out properly (or
> perhaps based on the knowledge
>
> Well, to be honest, I'd never put a call to pm_runtime_get_sync() into
> a driver's system suspend callback.
Nevertheless, the PM core allows it to happen and there are not only
subsystem-level code but also drivers that use it, for whatever
reasons.
>
> Subsystem callbacks are a different ma
On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:30:57 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > That should have been
> >
> > driver->runtime_suspend(dev)
> > do_X(dev)
> >
> > because do_Y(dev) is for runtime suspend. Sorry.
> >
> > And of course, the subsystem-level
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That should have been
>
> driver->runtime_suspend(dev)
> do_X(dev)
>
> because do_Y(dev) is for runtime suspend. Sorry.
>
> And of course, the subsystem-level code you're developing the driver for may
> not
> do the do_X(dev) thing a
On Friday, November 29, 2013 02:52:20 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:32:06 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
[...]
> > For the same reasons, I believe we should trust drivers/subsystems, to
> > understand when it makes sense for them to re-use all of the runtime
> > PM callback
On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:32:06 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> > The lack of specificity here doesn't make the discussion any easier.
> >
> > It usually is better to talk about specific problems to address than
> > using general terms which may mean slightly different things for different
> > pe
On 29 November 2013 10:32, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>> The lack of specificity here doesn't make the discussion any easier.
>>
>> It usually is better to talk about specific problems to address than
>> using general terms which may mean slightly different things for different
>> people.
>
> During th
>
> The lack of specificity here doesn't make the discussion any easier.
>
> It usually is better to talk about specific problems to address than
> using general terms which may mean slightly different things for different
> people.
During these discussions, I have tried to point at existing code
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:58:48 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 27 November 2013 21:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 04:34:55 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> To put devices into low power state during system suspend, it may be
> >> convenient
> >> for runtime PM supp
On 27 November 2013 21:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 04:34:55 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> To put devices into low power state during system suspend, it may be
>> convenient
>> for runtime PM supported subsystems, power domains and drivers to have the
>> option of re-
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 04:34:55 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> To put devices into low power state during system suspend, it may be
> convenient
> for runtime PM supported subsystems, power domains and drivers to have the
> option of re-using the runtime PM callbacks.
>
> At the moment, quite c
To put devices into low power state during system suspend, it may be convenient
for runtime PM supported subsystems, power domains and drivers to have the
option of re-using the runtime PM callbacks.
At the moment, quite complex solutions exist for power domains that tries to
handle the above, lik
15 matches
Mail list logo