On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Agree. If we can add a dev_pm_info bit, that would allow using runtime PM API during suspend/resume transitions, the driver will not have to care. Rafael what do you think ? Is that totally unacceptable ? Thanks, Ohad. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
