On Friday 05 June 2009, Magnus Damm wrote: > 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. So, you need a generic mechanism that drivers can use to notify the bus type code that a device is idle and therefore it should schedule an autosuspend request for the device. Also, you want a mechanism by which drivers can notify the platform code that there is a need to wake-up an autosuspended device. Is that correct? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
