On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
Hi,
> 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?
I'd say so, it's modified in a few places without locking.
> > --- /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.
Well, you've got a very good answer to this from Alan. ;-)
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
