Re: subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 2010-12-18 at 18:00 +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:

> > That's where the problem is.  If there's a difference, from the driver's
> > point of view, between suspend and some other operation, there should be a
> > way to tell the driver what case it actually is dealing with.
> 
> Yes, the problem will be solved if the driver would bypass the runtime
> PM framework on system suspend. mac80211 obviously has this
> information, and technically it's very easy to let the driver know
> about it.
> 
> But the difference between suspend and normal operation is really
> artificial: in both cases mac80211 just asks the driver to power its
> device down, and the end result is exactly the same (a GPIO line of
> the device is de-asserted in our case). The difference between these
> two scenarios
> exist only because runtime PM is effectively disabled during system
> suspend, and therefore the driver has to look for an alternative way
> to power down the device.

Sounds to me like the difference isn't really in the driver, but the
core PM subsystem. Why does it care when powering off a device whether
it's during suspend, or during runtime?

johannes

_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux