On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 14:50 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 16:03 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > > > May I know if this patchset will enter v3.7? > > > > > > Sigh, well, I was hoping to persuade the PM people to sort this out > > > first. > > > > > > The first observation is that all this looks to be too specific. ZPO > > > may be ACPI specific, but the property it abstracts: whether the > > > particular device is powered off or not is generic and probably should > > > be known at the generic PM level. Nothing actually really cares about > > > how we power off the device until you get all the way down to the ACPI > > > controller. > > > > > > I think we could do this with a couple of flags sitting inside struct > > > device itself: one for pm state and capabilities defined at a generic > > > level and one for device specific pm state. The latter would be for > > > things like the door lock information which is very specific to CDs > > > (although not specific to SCSI CDs). Alternatively, even if we can't > > > use these capabilities at the generic pm level, we still need an > > > internal state set of flags because power state stuff traverses the > > > stack and struct device is the only universal object in that stack. > > > > > > So I definitely think all of the sdev flags should become either generic > > > or specific flags in device. > > > > Well, the problem is that it is kind of irrelevant to the core whether or > > not the given device can be powered off. Moreover, the actual meaning of > > what "power off" means depends on the platform (it may be an individual device > > state or a power domain state, for instance). Also, the set of available > > low-power states depends on the platform (or the bus type) and generally > > cannot be universally represented and there are low-power states that > > aren't "power off" per se, but still require the device state to be > > restored when putting it back into full power. > > So I don't insist on it being generic, but we do need somewhere to hang > the state. > > > We've discussed that for a few times and each time we've ended up agreeing > > that struct device is not the right place to store this information (for > > example, PCI stores it in struct pci_dev, USB has its own rules etc.). > > So, here's the problem this causes. In SCSI, lower level devices have > no access to the drivers (to which the upper layer structures are tied), > so we have no way to go from device/scsi device to the scsi_disk > structure say. This means that a lot of device specific PM stuff tends > to have flags in scsi_device just so we can get access to it. A flag in > device would allow us to carry the information farther (say to struct > cdrom for instance). > > > I'll have a look at the patchset again and see what can be done about this. I think I see what you mean. For example, the sr driver uses its "device" member to pass information to the libata layer, if I understand things correctly, and the libata layer cannot go back to its struct scsi_cd, right? First off, I agree with you that putting those PM fields into struct scsi_device is not the cleanest approach and it would be good to find some other place for them. However, I also don't think that struct device (or struct dev_pm_info embedded in it for that matter) is any better (those fields in there would make as little sense as they do in struct scsi_device). Now, the question is where to store them and I think there are a couple of places worth considering. For instance, there's the void *driver_data field in struct acpi_device that I bet is unused for the ACPI devices associated with ATA ones and in principle it might be set by libata to point to a PM data structure (that would require some "platform" helper functions for the sr, sd etc. drivers to access that structure). There also is the subsys_data field in struct dev_pm_info that might be used to point to some libata-specific PM data (although the question is which struct dev_pm_info to use in that case, the sdev's one, or the sdev->gendev's one?). Thanks, Rafael -- 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
