[linux-pm] Nested suspends; messages vs. states

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:

> And do we really want user writing D2 to /sys file?

Yes, absolutely.  And we want the power/state file to contain "D2" when 
a PCI device is in that state.

> > Even just from first principles the mistake is apparent.  pm_message_t is
> > (or will be, when the structure is defined in its final form) a _message_,
> > not a _state_.  It contains (will contain) things other than the power
> > state setting, such as the "flags" field.  Why would a device want to
> > store pm_message_t.flags as part of its current state?
> 
> Because device may enter different hw states for different flags?

But once the device is in a particular state, the reason why it entered
that state doesn't matter any more.  Certainly it shouldn't be _part_ of 
the state.

Consider this: Device states are bus- or device-specific structures, as 
discussed before.  But the PM core can export a set of minimal generic 
state structures for use by drivers that don't need anything more 
complicated than On, Frozen, or Suspended.  How does that sound?

Alan Stern


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux