On Friday, July 01, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 01, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes:
...
> > The decision of whether or not to clock gate and/or power gate based on
> > wakeup capabilies has to be made somewhere (and in fact is already made
> > by existing code.) But IMO, that decision should only be made where
> > wakeup capabilies are known, so that sensible decisions (for power
> > management) can be made.
> >
> > Until there is a way in the generic code to distinguish between the
> > various ways a device can wakeup, this decision should be left up to the
> > code that knows how.
>
> OK, so I suppose your suggestion is to drop the patch and let the
> .stop_device() and .power_off() PM domain callbacks to hand
That should have been "handle".
> that, is this correct?
Anyway, neither .stop_device(), nor .power_off() can make such decisions,
because they are used for both runtime PM and system suspend, so they shouldn't
do system suspend-specific checks.
So the only way forward I can see is to add a special PM domain callback,
say .active_wakeup(), that will return "true" if the device is to be left
active if wakeup-enabled. So the check you don't like will become
something like:
if (device_may_wakeup(dev) && genpd->active_wakeup
&& genpd->active_wakeup(dev))
return 0;
Would that be better?
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
