On Tuesday, December 28, 2010, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sunday, December 26, 2010, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Why does the driver need the device to be reset even though it hasn't > >> > been suspeneded yet? > >> > >> Because it is asked to stop the hardware by mac80211. > > > > So I guess the mac80211 layer should ask it to start it again. > > It does... > > And at this point the driver will try to boot a new firmware, but it > will only succeed if the device was indeed powered off. If it wasn't > (system suspend was cancelled before the host controller suspended), > the driver will fail to resume the device (because it can't reset it). It looks like you could simply do a power down-power up cycle before trying to load new firmware, just in case. I guess that's suboptimal for some reason? > We can change man80211 to let us know the system is suspending, and > then we will power down the device directly. Or we can use something > like your "runtime only" proposal, and then pm_runtime_put_sync() will > just work for us regardless of the system state. The pm_runtime_put_sync() is irrelevant at this point IMHO. First, we should figure out what needs to be done at the low level and _then_ think how to code it. From that we'll learn if you _really_ need anything new from the PM core, but quite frankly I seriously doubt it right now. > But that will not solve the /sys/devices/.../power/control problem. > For that we will either have always to bypass runtime PM, or introduce > something like "always auto"... Please pretend that the runtime PM framework doesn't exist for a while. How would you design things in that case? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
