On Sunday, 7 of December 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Rafael, I'd be happy to help with fixing up the USB PCI PM code. At > > > this point I'm not sure exactly what's needed, though. For instance, > > > is there any compelling reason to switch over to the new dev_pm_ops > > > approach? > > > > Certainly not at the moment. There will be a reason some time after .29. > > > > That said, it apparently is possible to clean up the resume callbacks of PCI > > USB controllers, as mentioned here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/6/38 > > > > > And what should the correct sequence of calls be? > > > > Well, that's something I'm not exactly sure about myself. Surely it seems > > reasonable to call pci_restore_state() with interrupts disabled and do the rest > > of resume after that. Also, I think that the core could execute things like > > pci_enable_device() during resume and pci_set_power_state()/pci_enable_wake() > > on suspend so that the drivers didn't have to. This way we could reduce code > > duplication quite a bit. > > Do you plan to change the PCI core to do these things any time soon? I'm going to do that after the patches from this series are merged. > Wouldn't that require changing a whole bunch of PCI drivers too? Only those that start to use the new framework before this happens (which probably is only MMC at this point). > I tend to agree that having the core take care of these choreographed > activities would be good -- it would leave less room for drivers to > make mistakes. > > So for now maybe it would be best just to rearrange the existing calls > in USB, and wait for the core changes before doing anything more > ambitious. Sounds good. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
