Re: Solving suspend-level confusion

[Oliver Neukum]

> > Disks in general are an example (IDE beeing the one that is currently
> > implemented, but we'll probably have to do the same for SATA and SCSI
> > at one point), you want to spin them off (with proper cache flush
> > etc...) when suspending to RAM, while you don't when suspending to
> > disk, as you really don't want them to be spun up again right away to
> > write the suspend image.
> 
> So suspend-to-RAM more or less matches PCI D3hot, and
> suspend-to-DISK matches PCI D3cold.  If those power states
> were passed to the device suspend(), the disk driver could act
> appropriately.  In my observation, D3cold was never passed
> down, it was always D3hot.

Maybe a better approach would be to describe the required features to
the drivers rather than encoding them in a single integer. Rather
like passing a request that states "lowest power level with device state
retained, must not do DMA, enable remote wake up"
 
[..]
> Though the PM core doesn't cooperate at all there.  Neither the
> suspend nor the resume codepaths cope well with disconnect
> (and hence device removal), the PM core self-deadlocks since
> suspend/resume outcalls are done while holding the semaphore
> that device_pm_remove() needs, ugh.

Shouldn't we deal with this like a failed resume?

	Regards
		Oliver
-
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/