On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 16:51 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > His proposed solution (freezing tasks when they cross the kernel > > boundary) helps for the s-t-r case, but in fact doesn't solve (1) > > because devices can be suspended at runtime > > This is a different thing and a different infrastructure is needed for it (not > present at the moment). Yeah I should've said "any of his proposed solutions" > > and then you certainly do not want to freeze tasks that try to access the > > device. > > > > (2) is related but not identical, what if you have a device suspended at > > runtime and some tasks tries to access it; should the task block until > > you wake up that device? > > I think the device should be woken up in that case. Ah, but that also means the device has to actually know about it. > > I think the core of the discussion isn't appreciated by everybody here > > yet---we need to solve both run-time and suspend-to-ram-time device > > suspend, not just one of them. > > For now, we're discussing the suspend-to-ram-time suspend only, for which > we have (some) infrastrcuture (and which should be supported by all drivers, > IMO). Right but if we solve the run-time suspend case in favour of having the device driver know about it then the suspend-to-ram-time suspend case solves itself. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
