On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 24, 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote: > ... > > > > > > You're trying to fight the runtime-PM design instead of using it as it > > > was intended. We already have an API for starting a resume from > > > interrupt context, and that's what you should use. > > > > It may seem like I'm trying to fight the design, but I'm actually trying > > to find ways to use it. I want to use the API (and we're using it > > successfully in most of our drivers now.) The problem is only in a few > > of these corner cases where using it introduces significant changes from > > previous behavior like introducing long, unbounded windows for missed > > interrupts. > > This really sounds to me like you need _noirq() runtime PM callbacks > and some framework around them. > > I'm not fundamentally against that, but it will require some time to introduce, > if we decide that it's really necessary. > > I need to think a bit more about that, thanks for the example. How about adding another flag to the dev_pm_info structure, to indicate that the runtime callbacks may be called in interrupt context? Maybe that will lead to problems I haven't thought of. But if it seems okay to you, I can code it up easily enough. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
