On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 00:51:34 schrieb Pavel Machek: > > Hi! > > > > > > ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the > > > > drivers are already suspended, right? > > > > > > Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm. > > > They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them these > > > operations mean saving/restoring state. > > > So for these devices implementing autosuspend makes no sense. > > > They would sensibly do only idle/busy detection. > > > > Yep... Let's call busy/idle detection and save/restore state > > "autosuspend" for those devices. It does not save any power, but it > > can be viewed as "kind-of-suspend". (No, I do not have this kind of > > details ready). > > Well, you probably would have to walk through all devices and check > all devices are either suspended or can be suspended. That would mean > struct device has to be extended to show common attributes. > > But what's wrong with calling suspend() the conventional way once you've > decided to go into sleepy mode? I'm not sure if it can be done in non-racy way. It is different from "conventional" suspend(): you can still have userland requests after this suspend(), and you should abort auto-sleep if you get one. (As opposed to blocking in system suspend case). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
