Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 07:55:55PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
>
>>> /**
>>> + * device_set_no_suspend_enable - Mark the device as used by userspace
>>> + * application
>>> + */
>>>
>
> This is not proper kernel-doc, please fix this up.
>
> And "no_suspend_enable" is ackward, drop the "enable" part?
>
>
>
>>> +void device_set_no_suspend_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device *next;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
>>> +
>>> + /* the new status is equal the old one */
>>> + if (dev->power.no_suspend == !!enable)
>>> + goto out;
>>> +
>>> + /* change the device status */
>>> + dev->power.no_suspend = !!enable;
>>> + if (dev->power.no_suspend)
>>> + dev->power.subtree_no_suspend = 0;
>>>
>>>
>> I find a bug here, i will fix.
>> It can be ok the rest of the code?
>>
>>> +
>>> + list_for_each_entry_reverse(next, &dev->power.entry, power.entry) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * exit if we find a node with the same parent of the start
>>> + * device
>>> + */
>>> + if (dev->parent && next->parent == dev->parent)
>>> + break;
>>> +
>>> + if (next->parent) {
>>> + /* Propagate the status */
>>> + next->power.subtree_no_suspend =
>>> + device_no_suspend_enable(next->parent);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +out:
>>> + mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
>>> + return;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_no_suspend_enable);
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> * device_pm_add - add a device to the list of active devices
>>> * @dev: Device to be added to the list
>>> */
>>> @@ -78,6 +117,11 @@ void device_pm_add(struct device *dev)
>>> if (dev->parent->power.status >= DPM_SUSPENDING)
>>> dev_warn(dev, "parent %s should not be sleeping\n",
>>> dev_name(dev->parent));
>>> + if (device_no_suspend_enable(dev->parent)) {
>>> + /* if the parent has suspend disable, propagate it
>>> + * to the new child */
>>> + dev->power.subtree_no_suspend = 1;
>>> + }
>>> } else if (transition_started) {
>>> /*
>>> * We refuse to register parentless devices while a PM
>>> @@ -87,7 +131,15 @@ void device_pm_add(struct device *dev)
>>> dev_WARN(dev, "Parentless device registered during a PM transaction\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> - list_add_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_list);
>>> + if (dev->parent) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * if the device has a parent insert just before it.
>>> + */
>>> + list_add_tail(&dev->power.entry, &(dev->parent)->power.entry);
>>> + }
>>> + else
>>> + list_add_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_list);
>>> +
>>>
>
> Why are you changing the ordering for when we add devices to the list?
> This seems like you are adding stuff now in backwards order, why make
> this change?
>
Sorry you are right the children must be discovere after and not before
parent.
I was convinced that children go to suspend before parent.
Michael
> confused,
>
> greg k-h
>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
