On Friday, August 25, 2017 11:28:25 AM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > > >> > >> The above change would offer an improvement, however there are more > >> benefits from the runtime PM centric path that it doesn't cover. > > > > The idea, though, is not to make it instead of, but in addition to the > > runtime PM centric path. > > > > So a driver using the runtime PM centric (or rather runtime PM aware) > > callbacks can set power.force_suspend and benefit from having direct_complete > > set conditional on whether or not the device is runtime resumed before the > > late suspend. > > > > If device_complete remains set in __device_suspend_late(), no system > > suspend/resume callbacks will be invoked from that point on. If it isn't > > set, pm_runtime_force_suspend() should work just fine and then > > pm_runtime_force_resume() should do the right thing on the way back. > > > > All boils down to (a) setting a flag and (b) using the right callbacks > > for system suspend which is the case with your patches either. > > You make it sound simple. :-) > > I try to get inspired of your ideas and see what I can come up with. > However, I really want us to avoid making it more difficult to > understand the behavior of the core, so I probably look start changing > the ACPI PM domain first, then trying to adopt the behavior of the > core on top of those changes. Does that sound reasonable to you? Well, I don't think we need to change the ACPI PM domain at all. :-) However, let me contiune in a reply to https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=150361200030186&w=2 for more complete context. 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
