On 27 November 2013 17:05, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> We first need to clarify the terminology as that seems to be the source of >> the confusion to some extent at least. >> >> When I (or Alan presumably too) say "a subsystem", I mean a bus type, a device >> type or a device class as represented by struct bus_type, struct device_type >> and struct class, respectively. So "a subsystem callback" means the specific >> callback defined in the given bus type, device type or device class object. >> You can think about that as of "subsystem level" if that's easier. So that's >> what we mean when we talk about subsystems, not the whole collection of drivers >> and the code above them. > > Thanks, this makes it perfectly clear now. I will try to improve while > communicating. > > So we have subsystems, power domains and drivers to consider. > >> >> Now, say you have a bus type. Usually, the bus type's PM callbacks will run >> device drivers' PM callbacks. Quite often they will do things to hardware >> in addition to what the drivers do. But if your driver's .suspend_late() >> depends on the runtime PM status of the device, then the bus type's .suspend() >> needs to preserve that status. That is, it cannot do anything to the hardware >> that may cause the runtime PM status of the device to become stale. That makes >> the .suspend() somewhat special, doesn't it? > can -> can't > I agree, but I can see why this should be a problem for each and every > driver/bus. > > Do note that idea here is only to provide the option of allowing > runtime PM callbacks to be executed as a part of the suspend_late -> > resume_early sequence. It is not a rule, it will have to be decided > for each subsystem/driver it they can benefit from this set up. > >> >> Now I *guess* that your goal is something like "if that device has been >> runtime suspended, don't touch it", which is a reasonable goal to have. I'd >> like to implement something like that too, but I think that it needs to be done >> differently. > > That is just a minor important part, but nice to have. Please have > look at the recently submitted patch set, "[PATCH 0/5] PM: Enable > option of re-use runtime PM callbacks at system suspend", I hope the > "cover letter" will describe my intention better. > >> >> Actually, my idea is to allow the subsystem-level .prepare() callback to let >> the core know if the device needs to be handled during the given suspend/resume >> cycle. It may be arranged, for example, so that if the subsystem-level (e.g. >> bus type) .prepare() returns a positive number, the core will put the device >> into a special list and it won't take it into consideration at all during the >> whole cycle. >> >> Why this way? Because subsystems have much better ways to determine whether >> or not it is necessary to access the device during the upcoming system >> suspend/resume cycle than the core does. > > I am not sure I understand how this will solve my issues (except the > minor "if that device has been runtime suspended, don't touch it" - > thing). > > I will still have to have a complex power domain and still > drivers/buses need wrapper functions around their the runtime PM > callbacks to invoke them during system suspend, if they need them. > > In my view, I don't think your idea is conflict or can replace what I > suggest. Both can improve the situation, but maybe for different > scenarios. > > Kind regards > Ulf Hansson > >> >> 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
