On Friday, May 09, 2008 10:13 am Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So why not make platform_pci_choose_state do:
> > + pci_power_t noacpi_pci_choose_state(struct pci_dev *dev, pci_message_t
> > state)
> > + {
> > + if (!pci_find_capability(dev, PCI_CAP_ID_PM))
> > + return state;
> > + }
> >
> > instead? Then in the PCI core we would assign either
> > platform_pci_choose_state to acpi_pci_choose_state or
> > noacpi_pci_choose_state
>
> Good idea.
>
> > (though that's a bad name).
>
> Does generic_pci_choose_state() sound better?
Yeah, that's better.
> > But really, since drivers should probably know what power state to put
> > their devices in for suspend & hibernate, maybe on non-ACPI systems the
> > function should just return an error and the driver can choose...
>
> That's one possibility too, but in that case many drivers will do
>
> state = pci_preferred_state(dev);
> if (state == PCI_POWER_ERROR)
> state = something;
>
> It's just shorter to write
>
> state = pci_preferred_state(dev, something);
But really that's the idea, since if the core doesn't know what state your
device should be in (and in many non-ACPI cases I'd argue that to be true)
your driver should be picking something sensible. After all, states other
than D0 and D3 are really device dependent, right?
One way to avoid some ugliness like you show above would be:
device_suspend(...)
{
...
state = PCI_D3hot;
pci_choose_state(dev, pm_state, &state);
pci_set_power_state(dev, state);
...
}
So in this case pci_choose_state would either change state or leave it
untouched if it didn't have a better idea about things. But now that I look
at it I'm not sure it's an improvement. :)
Jesse
--
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
