Hi Rafael, On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> I tried to address your comments and the Oliver's comments too in the new >> version of the patch below. Please have a look and tell me what you think. > > Argh, I forgot about some important things. > > First, there are devices with no parent (actually, it would be much easier if > they had a default dummy parent, but that's a separate issue). > > Second, the parent has to be taken into account in the asynchronous resume > path too (which BTW is more complicated). > > Finally, I decided to follow the Oliver's suggestion that some error codes returned > by ->autosuspend() and ->autoresume() may be regarded as "go back to the > previous state" information. I chose to use -EAGAIN and -EBUSY for this > purpose. > > Updated patch follows, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your work on this. I think the patch looks very good in general so I will not comment on the code itself. I do however have a few high level questions: Q1) Regarding pm_request_suspend(), would it be possible to get a synchronous version or to make use of the completion somehow? Q2) As pm_request_suspend() works today, the device is marked as RPM_IDLE and the delayed work is queued up. There is no real decision making going on except the time out. I'd like to let the bus code decide when to autosuspend a buch of devices. Maybe the idle handling should be broken out into a pm_request_idle() and pm_request_suspend() can be modified to synchronously suspend devices marked with pm_request_idle()? Q3) Have you thought about how device drivers can inform the Runtime PM that the device are idle and that they need the hardware to be woken up? I'd like something similar to my "[PATCH 02/04] Driver Core: Add idle and wakeup functions" patch but maybe not specific to platform devices. We talked about adding some hooks to the bus_type for this. Any ideas? This is how I'm thinking of integrating your Runtime PM code with our SuperH platform devices: Device Idle Handling: 1) Device drivers call pm_device_idle() (See Q3) which invokes arch specific platform bus code in the case of our SoC platform devices. This bus code marks the device as idle using pm_request_idle(). (See Q2). At this point light weight power management like clock stopping may be performed as well. 2) The arch specific bus code knows how the platform devices are grouped together (thanks to the data area in "[PATCH] Driver Core: Add platform device arch data V3"), and when all devices in one power domain are marked as idle the bus code calls the synchronous pm_request_suspend() (no delay). 3) When all devices in the power domain are suspended the bus code can turn off the power. The reason why I'd like to only autosuspend when all devices are idle is simply that we don't get any power savings from the per device autosuspend() callbacks, only from turning off power to the entire per-domain. So bindly autosuspending and autoresuming devices is just pure overhead unless we know we can do it for all devices in the domain. 4) Over time when the code in 2) should be extended to handle latencies. Device Wakeup Handling: 1) Device drivers call pm_device_wakeup() (See Q3). This invokes arch specific bus code for our SoC platform devices. The bus code enables clocks if needed and also calls pm_resume_sync(). 2) After the call to pm_resume_sync() the pm_device_wakeup() call returns and the device driver can access the hardware as usual. That's it! Far from perfect but maybe a good start at least. I have seen quite a few patches from you lately, nice work. To make tracking of the Runtime PM patches easier, can you pleae consider including the version of the patch in the subject when you post new versions? Thanks! / magnus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
