Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

2010/8/8 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>:
> On Saturday, August 07, 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/8/7 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > 2010/8/7 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>:
>> >> On Saturday, August 07, 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >>> 2010/8/6 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> >>> > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> ...
>> >>> >> total_time, total time the wake lock has been active. This one should
>> >>> >> be obvious.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Also easily added.
>> >>> >
>> >>> Only with a handle passed to all the calls.
>> >>
>> >> Well, I'm kind of tired of this "my solution is the only acceptable one"
>> >> mindset.  IMHO, it's totally counter productive.
>> >>
>> >
>> > How do you propose to track how long a driver has blocked suspend when
>> > you have an unblock call that takes no arguments.
>> >
>>
>> Also, I did not not see a response to my question about why you don't
>> want to pass a handle.
>
> It doesn't really matter what I personally want.  In fact, I'm not totally
> opposed to that idea, although there are disadvantages (eg. a "handle"
> would really mean a pointer to an object with certain life cycle that needs to
> be managed by the caller and it's not that clear to me who should manage the
> objects that the PCI wakeup code would pass to pm_wakeup_event(), for one

Wouldn't a single global handle work for the way you are handling pci
wakeup events? It looked like you just reset a global timeout every
time a pci wakeup event occurs.

> example).  I sent a pull request for your original patchset to Linus after all. :-)
>
> I said I didn't think "it would fly", meaning that I was afraid the other kernel
> developers wouldn't like that change.
>
> The reason why I think so is that you'd like to add a whole new infrastructure
> whose only purpose would be debugging that would only be useful to systems
> using opportunistic suspend.  That, however, is only Android right now and it
> cannot use the mainline kernel for other reasons, so basically we would add
> infrastructure that's useful to no one.
>

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The debugging is useful for anyone
using the api, not just Android, and a handle is also needed to mix
timeouts and pm_relax. The handle can be the device, but some drivers
need several handles per device.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/