"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> [..] >> >> > While it is tempting to try to get away with only two PM callbacks per >> > driver instead of four (or even more), it generally is not doable, simply >> > because driver callbacks are not executed directly by the core. >> > >> > The only way to address the problem of code duplication between .suspend() >> > and .runtime_suspend() callbacks (and analogously for resume) I see at the >> > moment is to make those callbacks execute common routines. >> >> Makes sense if the "common routines" are in the driver. The problem >> arises when the common routines are not actually in the driver, but are >> instead at the subsystem (or in this case, device power domain) level. > > As Alan said, I'm not sure why that is a problem, because device power > domain can (and most likely should) provide system suspend callbacks as well > as runtime PM callbacks. Those callbacks can be designed to do whatever is > needed. Yes, I see now. For some reason, my runtime PM focus caused me to not consider the system PM callbacks in the device power domains. Taking care of things there should solve my problems. Sorry for being a bit blind, Kevin _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
