On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Going back to the old powerbook sleep code, we had a two-phase > suspend: drivers got notified once when userspace is still running, > with interrupts enabled, in process context; and then a second time > with interrupts disabled and with only one CPU up, so the process > that is initiating the suspend is the only process running (since > interrupts are disabled and nothing it does can sleep, no other > process can get to run). > > I still believe that is the right way to go, although we currently > only have a single-phase suspend. > > Most drivers suspended their hardware in the second call. If they are > in the middle of a conversation with their device that *has* to be > completed, they can do that by polling. Ugh. That will cause problems when you try to integrate runtime suspend. In fact this whole approach is unsuitable for runtime PM and it obscures the similarities between runtime PM and STR. > If it's a character device, a > better approach would be to set a flag or whatever in the first > suspend call to make sure that no new conversations get started with > the device, sleeping if necessary. > > I'm actually having a hard time thinking of how to test your assertion > since there are so few things on a typical computer that are plain > character devices driving real hardware. A serial port would be about > the only one; keyboards and mice (and serial ports :) are USB these > days, or ADB on older powerbooks. You don't have to restrict yourself to character devices driving real hardware. The same issues apply to USB and other buses. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
