On Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:51, David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 21 June 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, David Brownell wrote: > > > On Thursday 21 June 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > > > > > _How_ does the provider know what the next target state is? > > > > > > That's an interface between the provider and the platform's PM code. > > > Remember those two patches? > > > ... > > > > Now we're getting back to the question which started this thread. > > That patch takes care of one platform, but now consider an ACPI system. > > How should the ACPI core learn what the next target system state will > > be? > > The original patch -- to which the previous $SUBJECT patch was > an update -- did more or less the same thing: pm_ops recorded > the ACPI target state ... > > > > And once it possess that knowledge, what's the best way for it to > > tell various subsystems which device states/functions will be > > supported? > > ... and then exposed a method returning ACPI_STATE_Sx values, > called by non-core ACPI code. But we have changed the suspend code ordering and the state recorded by pm_ops only becomes known to ACPI _after_ we have suspended devices. That's what this thread is all about, BTW. > At which point your narrative falters. What it's exposed to is > not a subsystem ... but ACPI versions of hooks invoked by the > subsystem. For PCI, to be specific. > > That is, the knowledge of that target sleep state never leaves > that platform's PM code. (In this case, ACPI; including its PCI > support, which lives in drivers/pci not drivers/acpi.) Because > no subsystem other than ACPI itself should care how ACPI does any > of its PM stuff. All of this is fine, but we need some way to tell ACPI what the next sleep state will be, because currently _we_ _have_ _not_ one. So, do we introduce an additional pm_op to do that or are we going to do something else? > > > Of course, I believe we need to move away from "suspend_state_t" > > > being effectively just "standby" or "STR" (or "ON") so that more > > > of the hardware capabilities can be exposed. Systems that have, > > > say, seven different hardware states can't fit into Linux today. > > > > I agree that the list of system states should be configurable and > > perhaps even adjustable at runtime. However this is somewhat OT. > > Only slightly; remember, a main reason Linux has so few states is > that PCs don't use any more. There are a number of PC-specific > models and assumptions lurking in this area. One of them is that > the target sleep state is anything more than a stepping-stone to > the important platform-specific information. As far as my original question is concerned, this is OT. > > > (Related, I think that target *run* states are under-appreciated. > > > That's the general runtime PM issue. Interfaces should work for > > > run-state transitions as well as sleep-state ones...) > > > > Perhaps something like this: Resource providers have an API whereby > > drivers can find out what resources either are currently available or > > will be available in the next system state (a little awkward to specify > > which is needed). Then drivers decide on a new device state based on > > the type of change requested and the available resources, and notify > > the providers via a second API about any change in resource usage. > > Resource providers have interfaces (*) they expose; yes. *IF* those > resources change availability based on system states, there must be > interfaces drivers can use to notice that. The providers already have > interfaces to manage resources, and won't need new cals for that. > > The calls to expose whether a given in-use resource must be released > or modified would be simplest if they're just query calls made by > driver suspend()/resume() methods, but there's also something to be > said for callbacks in certain contexts. > > (*) "API" == "Application Programming Interface", a userspace thing. > So I avoid using that TLA for anything inside the OS kernel. Agreed. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
