"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> Also, what is the use case for having 2 sets of power_domain ops? My
>> gut tells me that you'd only want to do post ops on the
>> {freeze,suspend,poweroff} path and pre ops on the {resume,thaw,restore}
>> path. It seems overly engineered to me, but I may be missing
>> something fundamental.
>
> Well, that's a part of the RFC, actually. :-)
>
> For the subsystems I've worked with (PCI, ACPI, PNP to some extent) one set
> would be sufficient, but I don't know of every possible use case.
For the on-chip SoC devices we're managing with OMAP, we're currently
only using one set: post ops on [runtime_]suspend and pre ops on
[runtime_]resume.
However, I could imagine (at least conceptually) using the pre ops on
suspend to do some constraints checking and/or possibly some
management/notification of dependent devices. Another possiblity
(although possibly racy) would be using the pre ops on suspend to
initiate some high-latency operations.
I guess the main problem with two sets is wasted space. e.g, if I move
OMAP to this (already hacking on it) there will be only 2 functions used
in post ops: [runtime_]suspend() and 2 used in pre ops [runtime_]_resume().
Kevin
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
