On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 29 May 2009, Magnus Damm wrote: >> 2009/5/29 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: >> > On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Magnus Damm wrote: >> >> From: Magnus Damm <damm@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> Add platform_device_idle() and platform_device_wakeup() >> >> and allow architectures to implement their own versions >> >> of these if CONFIG_HAVE_PLATFORM_IDLE_WAKEUP is set. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Yes, this needs documentation. See [00/04] for now. >> >> >> >> arch/Kconfig | 3 +++ >> >> include/linux/platform_device.h | 8 ++++++++ >> >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> --- 0002/arch/Kconfig >> >> +++ work/arch/Kconfig 2009-05-26 12:31:06.000000000 +0900 >> >> @@ -115,3 +115,6 @@ config HAVE_DEFAULT_NO_SPIN_MUTEXES >> >> >> >> config HAVE_PLATFORM_DEVICE_ARCHDATA >> >> bool >> >> + >> >> +config HAVE_PLATFORM_DEVICE_IDLE_WAKEUP >> > >> > Again, I'm not sure if the new CONFIG_ option is really necessary. >> >> At least it could be combined into a single option for platform device >> runtime pm. So no need to have separate kconfig options for [02/04] >> and [03/04]. >> >> We could also drop the #ifdef stuff and go for weak symbols that can >> be overriden by architecture code. > > The weak symbols don't work really AFAICS. People have been replacing them > with alternative things recently. > >> I'm open to suggestions. =) > > Well, that depends on what exactly you want to achieve. :-) =) I'd like an architecture independent interface upstream that makes it possible for device drivers to notify the architecture code that they are idle() and that need wakeup(). In the long term I hope we can share a great deal of runtime PM code between architectures, but for now we just need some architecture specific hooks to get started. The wakeup()/idle() code in this patch is one way to solve it on a platform device level. Another more generic way would be to add ->enable() and ->disable() callbacks to struct bus_type and introduce device_enable() and device_disable() that takes struct device and invokes the bus callbacks if set. Any thoughts? Does it make sense? / magnus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
