Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] PM / sleep: Let devices force direct_complete

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Ulf Hansson wrote:

> I hesitated to send this reply, since it might add confusion. If
> that's the case, please ignore it.
> 
> I have a long term vision to fully enable support for a runtime PM
> centric configuration for drivers/subsystems. The idea is, that such
> driver/subsystem should get system PM for "free".
> 
> The main goal is to simplify PM implementation for these drivers/subsystems.
> 
> They should need to implement the runtime PM callbacks only and not
> the system PM ones. During system PM suspend, the requirement is that
> the corresponding devices should be guaranteed to be "runtime PM
> suspended". Somehow that then needs to be managed by the PM core.
> 
> I am not sure it's doable, but I wanted to bring it up within the
> context of $subject patch, since it proposes yet another optimization
> path for runtime PM during system PM.

I suspect it is _not_ doable.  Consider a reasonable scenario: a driver
that does pm_runtime_get_sync() in its open routine and
pm_runtime_put() in its release routine.  If a user process holds the
device file open during a system suspend, it will be impossible for the
PM core to do a runtime suspend.

On the other hand, there's nothing to prevent drivers from setting 
their ->suspend and ->runtime_suspend structure members to point at the 
same routine.  The routine would need to handle the case where it was 
called for a system suspend while the device was already runtime 
suspended, but that doesn't seem too hard.  With the "direct-suspend" 
option, even this wouldn't be necessary.

Alan Stern

--
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/