On Sunday, January 30, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This is something we discussed during the last Linux Plumbers Conference. > > > > The problem appears to be that the same device may be used in different > > systems in different configurations such that actions necessary for the > > device's power management can vary from one system to another. In those > > cases the drivers' power management callbacks are generally not sufficient, > > because they can't take the configuration of the whole system into account. > > > > I think this issue may be addressed by adding objects that will represent > > power domains and will provide power management callbacks to be executed > > in addition to the device driver's PM callbacks, which is done by the patch > > below. > > > > Please have a look at it and tell me what you think. > > One thing about this implementation is slightly questionable. The new > power_domain callbacks were added to the __weak platform PM routines, > which means they will have to be included in every overriding routine > provided by a platform imiplementation. > > Would it be better to separate these things? Have the power_domain > callbacks occur in a static outer function which then calls a public > __weak inner function that can be overridden? That certainly is a good idea, but I wasn't sure how to do that. It looks like I could keep the __weak functions as they are and modify platform_dev_pm_ops instead to point to a new set of function that in turn would call the __weak ones. For example, the .suspend pointer in platform_dev_pm_ops might point to a new function, say platform_pm_full_suspend() that would call the power domain functions and the "original" platform_pm_suspend(). Is that what you mean? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
