On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > 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. Dependency management is very relevant here, since we're talking about relations that explicitly aren't of the parent-child type. If any of the devices in question get marked for async suspend/resume, for example, they certainly will need dependency handling. > 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(). The wasted space is minimal; we're only talking about one extra pm_ops structure for each power domain. Presumably any reasonable SoC isn't going to have a tremendous number of separate power domains. Or am I wrong about this? Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
