Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] PM / Core: suspend_again callback fordevice PM.

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> If I saw it correctly, patches [2-3/3] only added the generic routine to
> the platform and i2c bus types, right?
> 
> Now, this one is better than the previous one IMO, but (1) it also should
> cover hibernation (I'd don't see a reason why suspend-to-RAM should be a
> special case here) and (2) I don't really think that thawing user
> space is

Suspend-to-RAM really is special here... at least for zaurus-like
machine.

In hibernation, you are "powered down"; that means suspend to RAM with
bootloader active (operating system is off). You do not need to do any
kind of maintenance -- bootloader takes care of battery charging and
protection.

> "too heavy" (in fact it's much lighter weight than resuming all devices
> that your approach doesn't prevent from happening, so for example on my
> desktop/notebook machines I woulnd't mind at all if user space were
> thawed after all of the devices had been resumed).

Well, it would be behavior change for the user. I told the zaurus to
go s2ram, I do not expect it to wake up after 5 minutes because it
needed to check battery status.

I'd have to modify my userland to retry suspend again and again and
again...

> > @@ -145,6 +145,15 @@ typedef struct pm_message {
> >   *	actions required for resuming the device that need interrupts to be
> >   *	disabled
> >   *
> > + * @suspend_again: Tell the system whether the device wants to either
> > + *	suspend again (return > 0), wake up (return < 0), or not-care
> > + *	(return = 0). If a device wants to poll sensors or execute some code
> > + *	during suspended, suspend_again callback is the place assuming that
> > + *	periodic-wakeup or alarm-wakeup is already setup. Note that if a
> > + *	device returns "wakeup" with an under-zero value, it overrides
> > + *	other devices' "suspend again" return values. This allows to
> > + *	execute some codes while being kept suspended in the view of userland.
> > + *
> 
> Since, as I said, I think that should cover hibernation too, I'd change the
> name to, say, sleep_again().

I'm not sure if we need to cover hibernation. Do you know any machine
that needs this for hibernation case?

> > @@ -291,7 +291,9 @@ int enter_state(suspend_state_t state)
> >  		goto Finish;
> >  
> >  	pr_debug("PM: Entering %s sleep\n", pm_states[state]);
> > -	error = suspend_devices_and_enter(state);
> > +	do {
> > +		error = suspend_devices_and_enter(state);
> > +	} while (!error && dpm_suspend_again());
> >  
> >   Finish:
> >  	pr_debug("PM: Finishing wakeup.\n");
> > 
> 
> To conclude, I'm not sure about the approach.  In particular, I'm not sure
> if the benefit is worth the effort and the resulting complications (ie. the
> possibility of having to deal with wakeup signals not requested by user
> space) seem to be a bit too far reaching.

We already have platform-specific hacks to do exactly this at least on
Zaurus. Moving it to common code means that hacks are not duplicated..
									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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/