Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: The evilness of struct usb_device->auto_pm

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

 



Am Donnerstag 27 September 2007 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> On Thursday, 27 September 2007 21:37, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag 27 September 2007 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > > > But there's a problem, in that the resume methods don't take a message 
> > > > parameter.  So they wouldn't know whether they were doing a runtime 
> > > > resume or a system resume.
> > > 
> > > This is a general problem with the .resume() routines.
> > > 
> > > If you want to use one for runtime resume, the driver needs to preserve
> > > information allowing it to figure out what kind of resume is going to happen.
> > 
> > How? Suppose you
> > 
> > 1) runtime suspend
> > 2) whole system suspend
> > 3) whole system resume
> > 
> > What kind of resume do you do?
> 
> System resume, I'd guess.

How do you know unless resume() tells you to do so?

> Anyway, if we are going to stop using the freezer during suspend, the locking
> requirements will probably have to unified between the runtime and system
> suspend.

Even so, eg. for storage devices you should unquiesce them in case of runtime
suspend, which makes no sense otherwise.

	Regards
		Oliver


_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[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