On Monday, February 13, 2012, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if this is really the right approach. What you're trying > > > to do is implement two different low-power states, basically D3hot and > > > D3cold. Currently the runtime PM core doesn't support such things; all > > > it knows about is low power and full power. > > > > I'd rather say all it knows about is "suspended" and "active", which mean > > "the device is not processing I/O" and "the device may be processing I/O", > > respectively. A "suspended" device may or may not be in a low-power state, > > but the runtime PM core doesn't care about that. > > Yes, okay. We can say that this patch tries to implement two different > "suspended" states, basically "low power" and "power off" (or D3hot and > D3cold). > > > > Before doing an ad-hoc implementation, it would be best to step back > > > and think about other subsystems. Other sorts of devices may well have > > > multiple low-power states. What's the best way for this to be > > > supported by the PM core? > > > > Well, I honestly don't think there's any way they all can be covered at the > > same time and that's why we chose to support only "suspended" and "active" > > as defined above. The handling of multiple low-power states must be > > implemented outside of the runtime PM core (like in the PCI core, for example). > > That's the point. If this is to be implemented outside of the runtime > PM core, should the patch be allowed to add new fields to struct > dev_pm_info (which has to be shared among all subsystems)? > > Or to put it another way, if we do add new fields to struct dev_pm_info > (like can_power_off) in order to help support multiple "suspended" > states, shouldn't these new fields be such that they can be used by > many different subsystems rather than being special for the > full-power/no-power situation? > > Likewise, should new routines like pm_runtime_allow_power_off() be > added to the runtime PM core if they are going to be used just by PCI? No, they shouldn't. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
