On Wednesday 05 October 2005 1:08 pm, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, David Brownell wrote: > > > My theory is that the PM core doesn't need any notion that's more > > complex than "moved device from <this> device list to <that> one". > > Suspend and resume just move devices between lists. (That is, for _system_ sleep state transitions.) > Sounds reasonable. There's one thing to consider, though. System sleep > transitions are supposed to work even when devices are already in a > low-power state, which some drivers may not be able to handle. That's the > main reason why dev->power.power_state exists today -- so that the PM core > can see if a device needs to be set back to full power before suspending > it. Then let the darn driver implement those rules. Admittedly (as Scott Preece implied) that's a change in semantics, and some drivers may well expect suspend() is never followed by another suspend(). But my point was that the states are device-specific ... so there's really not much reasoning that least-common-denominator "pm core" code can do about the states. (IMO it's reasonable to define a "full-ON" state; but any other states can't be very generic.) > IMO we could avoid the need for power_state by removing the guarantee > about never calling ->suspend when a device is already in a low-power > state. The system sleep code could issue an optimistic ->suspend call, > and if that fails then do ->resume followed by ->suspend. I'm sure I said part of that. :) > As part of the infrastructure changes, we could remove > dev->power.power_state, dev->power.prev_state, and maybe also > dev->power.saved_state (currently it is used only in a few platform > drivers for stuff that could easily be stored in a private data > structure). Nothing would be needed but the name pointer, and that should > be under the bus/driver's control. Exactly. > People have already pretty much agreed that ->resume needs to take a > pm_message_t argument, and that will mean changing a lot of drivers. I certainly didn't agree on that, though I expect you remembered that. > > (IMO it's clearly wrong to clobber a power_state value that the > > driver set ... it surely knows more about itself than the pm core.) > > Drivers _should_ manage these values, especially if they will be used by > sysfs. On the other hand, if there are only two states then the PM core > can assume that the first is ON and the second is SUSPEND, so it could > handle the updates by itself. That's a big "if". Notice by the way there's no "OFF" ... what's with that? If there's "core" code knowing about states, "ON" and "OFF" would make sense pretty much always. Then there could be various driver specific states that can morph back to ON -- preserving state, which may be something USB needs more than most other frameworks -- with varying degrees of speed. - Dave
