On Monday 15 June 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:57:31 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Below is the current version of my "run-time PM for I/O devices" > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > I've done my best to address the comments received during the > > > > recent discussions, but at the same time I've tried to make the > > > > patch only contain the most essential things. For this reason, > > > > for example, the sysfs interface is not there and it's going to > > > > be added in a separate patch. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you want me to change anything in this > > > > patch or to add anything new to it. [Magnus, I remember you > > > > wanted something like ->runtime_wakeup() along with > > > > ->runtime_idle(), but I'm not sure it's really necessary. Please > > > > let me know if you have any particular usage scenario for it.] > > > > Appended is an update of the patch addressing the today's comments > > from Magnus. > > few comments from me > > 1) For the usecases for upcoming hw from Intel (where you really can't talk to the hw while it's in powersave mode); the locking needs to be > IRQ safe. Think of it like this: > Lets assume you get a (shared) interrupt from your device. In the handler you need to make 100% sure that > 1) you're not suspended at this point .. basically do a forced wakeup right there and then > 2) assure that you're not about to suspend Does it mean we need to use spin_[un]lock_irq[save|restore]() everywhere in the framework? > 2) You use jiffies in the API; I would suggest exposing milliseconds instead and internally convert to jiffies; > milliseconds tends to be a much more natural unit for this sort of thing OK Best, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
