Hi Rafael,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 15)
>
> Introduce a core framework for run-time power management of I/O
> devices. Add device run-time PM fields to 'struct dev_pm_info'
> and device run-time PM callbacks to 'struct dev_pm_ops'. Introduce
> a run-time PM workqueue and define some device run-time PM helper
> functions at the core level. Document all these things.
>
> Special thanks to Alan Stern for his help with the design and
> multiple detailed reviews of the pereceding versions of this patch
> and to Magnus Damm for testing feedback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Looking good! I have a few nitpicks below, but from a functional
perspective it's all good. I've tested v15 with platform device
drivers for I2C, UIO and framebuffer. Before adding my "Acked-by" I
also want to test the V4L capture driver, but I need to wait a few
days until I can get my hands on such a hardware platform.
Thanks for folding in and fixing up the debug patch. I was able to
drop most remaining patches thanks to feedback from Alan. So the only
needed patch apart from this one (and the ones in your linux-next
branch) is the one in this micro-series: "PM: Runtime PM v15 for
Platform Devices 20090812".
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/pm.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/pm.h
[..]
> struct dev_pm_info {
> pm_message_t power_state;
> - unsigned can_wakeup:1;
> - unsigned should_wakeup:1;
> + unsigned int can_wakeup:1;
> + unsigned int should_wakeup:1;
> enum dpm_state status; /* Owned by the PM core */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> struct list_head entry;
> #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> + struct timer_list suspend_timer;
> + unsigned long timer_expires;
> + struct work_struct work;
> + wait_queue_head_t wait_queue;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + atomic_t usage_count;
> + atomic_t child_count;
I suppose child_count has to be atomic?
> --- /dev/null
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
[...]
> +int __pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev, bool from_wq)
> + __releases(&dev->power.lock) __acquires(&dev->power.lock)
[...]
> + if (dev->bus && dev->bus->pm && dev->bus->pm->runtime_suspend) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> + retval = dev->bus->pm->runtime_suspend(dev);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> + dev->power.runtime_error = retval;
> + } else {
> + retval = -ENOSYS;
> + }
Nit: { and } above do not follow the regular coding style.
> +int __pm_runtime_resume(struct device *dev, bool from_wq)
> + __releases(&dev->power.lock) __acquires(&dev->power.lock)
[...]
> + if (dev->bus && dev->bus->pm && dev->bus->pm->runtime_resume) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> + retval = dev->bus->pm->runtime_resume(dev);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> + dev->power.runtime_error = retval;
> + } else {
> + retval = -ENOSYS;
> + }
Same minor issue here.
Apart from that all is fine. Thank you.
/ magnus
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
