On 02/27/2014 06:18 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 27 February 2014 10:10, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Ulf, >> >> I was tracking some SDIO suspend problem and came across this. As Neil >> mentioned here: >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/25/20 >> Quote: >> " >> SDIO (and possible MMC in general) has a protocol where the suspend >> method can return -ENOSYS and this means "There is no point in suspending, >> just turn me off". >> " >> >> It seems that the following commit: >> >> commit 810caddba42a54fe5db4e2664757a9a334ba359c >> Author: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon Jun 10 17:03:37 2013 +0200 >> >> mmc: core: Validate suspend prerequisites for SDIO at SUSPEND_PREPARE >> >> Changed this behaviour? > > I realized I changed the behaviour to not cover for sdio func drivers, > that actually implements the pm callbacks - but do return -ENOSYS in > them. That wasn't obvious when looking at the code back then, sorry! Never mind, this behaviour change doesn't cause my problems but knowing whether this behaviour should be kept affects how I'm going to solve my problem. My problem is that, after the following commit: commit eed222aca8d077af3600b651176f6fd04d95cce1 Author: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue Mar 5 11:24:52 2013 +0800 mmc: sdio: bind acpi with sdio function device The SDIO function that has an ACPI node associated with will have the pm_domain assigned, which breaks the intention that during SDIO function device suspend phase nothing should be done by having a dummy BUS layer callback. The existence of the pm_domain for the SDIO function device will make its function driver's suspend callback gets called now. The end result is the function driver's suspend callback is called twice. To solve this problem, I was wondering why SDIO function device has this 'special' requirement that nothing should be done at its own device suspend phase but instead, relies on its suspend callback gets called in its parent device's suspend callback. And then I realized the reason is for the special handling of -ENOSYS. So if we could get rid of the -ENOSYS, my problem could be easily solved by deleting some lines in current code(the calling of function driver's suspend callback in mmc_sdio_suspend and the dummy system suspend/resume callback for SDIO bus). Buf if the behaviour has to be kept, I'll probably need to remove the pm_domain for the device and do some additional ACPI handing in mmc_sdio_suspend/resume for the function device. > > There are no solution to this problem in the mmc core right now, since > we can't remove the card while we have reach the state when the > suspend callback is being invoked. > > Instead, the sdio func driver shall not implement the PM callbacks at > all. That behaviour means the mmc core will remove the card, but now > it's done a in an earlier phase of the system suspend when we are > still able to remove it. The libertas suspend callback is doing different things depending on different conditions - sometime it will enable wakeup capability and sometime it will want the mmc core to remove the device entirely by retuning -ENOSYS, so it may not be that easy by just deleting the callback, but I don't know for sure. Thanks, Aaron -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
