Re: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re:[RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
From: Alan Stern
Date: Fri Jun 12 2009 - 10:32:23 EST
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Freitag, 12. Juni 2009 04:16:10 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > What tree constraint? You mean that the PM core shouldn't allow
> > devices to suspend unless all their children are suspended? Why
> > doesn't it still apply?
> Because the hardware doesn't need it.
But maybe drivers need it.
> > Remember, when Rafael and I say "suspend" here, we don't mean "go to a
> > low-power state". We mean "the PM core calls the runtime_suspend
> > method". No matter what actions the link hardware may decide to take
> > on its own, the PM core will still want to observe the
> > all-children-suspended restriction when calling runtime_suspend
> > methods.
> No. The core if it insists all children be suspended will not use
> the hardware's full capabilities.
That isn't what I said. The core does not insist that all children be
suspended, i.e., be in a low-power state. It insists only that the
children's drivers' runtime_suspend methods have been called. Those
methods are not obligated to put the children in a low-power state.
> If it leaves such power saving measures to the drivers, latency
> accounting will be wrong.
> > > I think there are devices who can be suspended while children are active
> > > and devices which can not be. This is an attribute of the device and
> > > should be evaluated by the core.
> > Clearly it should be decided by the driver. Should there be a bit for
> > it in the dev_pm_info structure?
That would resolve the issue.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/