On 03/12/2015 06:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>>> Also, I think we need to clarify one more point for this patch: >>>> As was mentioned in commit message - Sleep_Notification can be interrupted >>> by HPI. >>>> This allows not blocking the host during the Sleep_Notification busy >>>> time and allows accepting requests coming during this stage. Thus, >>>> without having HPI supported, suspend/resume process might be >>>> influenced by Sleep_Notification busy time, and this should not happen - >>> suspend/resume should be done in very fast and not blocking manner. >>> >>> I fail to understand your comment here. >>> >>> Please tell me at what point(s) your think it make sense to issue the >>> SLEEP_NOTIFICATION? If that is during the suspend phase, then a HPI request >>> can't be triggered. >> >> I think SLEEP_NOTIFICATION should be issued on mmc_pm_notify() call, >> on PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE case. > > So, exactly why is that to prefer, comparing doing it in system PM > ->suspend() callback? Actually, i didn't know the benefit of this feature. Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > > Kind regards > Uffe > -- > 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 > -- 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
