On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 05:29:38 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > The PM core was preventing devices from going inactive during system > suspend. That's not even correct. It prevents the runtime PM framework from being used to suspend devices during system suspend and that's on purpose. The reason why is that we don't want asynchronous runtime suspends to happen during system suspend and race with the suspend process. > Remove this constraint and moreover try to inactivate devices > by invoking pm_runtime_idle() before proceeding with device's > suspend_late callbacks. > > A great amount of drivers that uses runtime PM will benefit from this. If the idea is to be able to do pm_runtime_suspend() from the system suspend code path, this is not the way to go and it kind of indicates the lack of understanding why things have been arranged this way. If you want a driver to do the same thing for runtime PM and system suspend/resume, point its .suspend_late() and .runtime_suspend() to the same routine and analogously for .runtime_resume() and .resume_early() (that may not work for PCI, though, because of the _noirq stuff, but that's the PCI bus type issue). Of course, the assumption behind .runtime_suspend() and .runtime_resume() is that they will be run when the device is not in use, while system suspend may actually happen when the device *is* in use and .suspend() should take care of that if necessary. So you may need .suspend() anyway. One important property of system suspend is that it can happen at any time and that's why the .suspend() and .resume() callbacks are needed (and this also means that they can't be the same as .runtime_suspend() and .runtime_resume() in general). Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
