Am Wednesday 18 February 2009 15:51:58 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:53:48 +0100> Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> > > Am Wednesday 18 February 2009 00:26:53 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:> > > > Another possibility is to set up independent runtime PM for the> > > > transport and the device. This means allowing the possibility> > > > that the transport is suspended while its child (the device) is> > > > not. This is a little simpler (there's only one idle-timeout per> > > > device, since the link is treated as an independent device), but> > > > it violates the principle of never suspending a parent while> > > > there is an active child.> > > > > > Well, I think the first approach would be better.> > > > I am afraid it wouldn't be. How do you deal with shared transports?> > > > realistically, something like this you need to design like this> Step 1) Assume the hardware is smart and can do this for you on the fly,> but it might need guidance.> (For many busses there are platforms that do this)> Step 2) For hardware that is not smart, emulate the smartness in the> driver, with help of the subsystem. These two together have> the right knowledge to make such decisions. But the transport and the driver may be in different subsystems, e.g.usb storage. Regards Oliver _______________________________________________linux-pm mailing listlinux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
