All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@crca.org.au>,
	pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>,
	David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:22:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200804021622.04461.oliver@neukum.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0804021007060.14858-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>

Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 16:11:14 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > However, I'd like to add a recommendation that the _new_ "resume" callbacks
> > should only return errors in critical situations as the indication to the PM
> > core that something went _really_ wrong and the device in question is quite
> > surely unusable.
> 
> Agreed.  The most important aspect is that drivers should _not_ return
> an error if the device is working correctly.  We should fix the drivers 
> which make this mistake.

We need to do something about devices that don't want to be resumed.
There's code like this:


static int usb_resume(struct device *dev)
{
	struct usb_device	*udev;

	if (!is_usb_device(dev))	/* Ignore PM for interfaces */
		return 0;
	udev = to_usb_device(dev);

	/* If udev->skip_sys_resume is set then udev was already suspended
	 * when the system suspend started, so we don't want to resume
	 * udev during this system wakeup.  However a reset-resume counts
	 * as a wakeup event, so allow a reset-resume to occur if remote
	 * wakeup is enabled. */
	if (udev->skip_sys_resume) {
		if (!(udev->reset_resume && udev->do_remote_wakeup))
			return -EHOSTUNREACH;
	}
	return usb_external_resume_device(udev);
}

Do we want to keep this in the subsystems?

	Regards
		Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@crca.org.au>,
	pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>,
	David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:22:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200804021622.04461.oliver@neukum.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0804021007060.14858-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>

Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 16:11:14 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > However, I'd like to add a recommendation that the _new_ "resume" callbacks
> > should only return errors in critical situations as the indication to the PM
> > core that something went _really_ wrong and the device in question is quite
> > surely unusable.
> 
> Agreed.  The most important aspect is that drivers should _not_ return
> an error if the device is working correctly.  We should fix the drivers 
> which make this mistake.

We need to do something about devices that don't want to be resumed.
There's code like this:


static int usb_resume(struct device *dev)
{
	struct usb_device	*udev;

	if (!is_usb_device(dev))	/* Ignore PM for interfaces */
		return 0;
	udev = to_usb_device(dev);

	/* If udev->skip_sys_resume is set then udev was already suspended
	 * when the system suspend started, so we don't want to resume
	 * udev during this system wakeup.  However a reset-resume counts
	 * as a wakeup event, so allow a reset-resume to occur if remote
	 * wakeup is enabled. */
	if (udev->skip_sys_resume) {
		if (!(udev->reset_resume && udev->do_remote_wakeup))
			return -EHOSTUNREACH;
	}
	return usb_external_resume_device(udev);
}

Do we want to keep this in the subsystems?

	Regards
		Oliver

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-04-02 14:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-29 22:17 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] PM: Rework suspend and hibernation code for devices (rev. 3) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-29 22:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 5) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-29 22:20   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-30  2:54   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-30  2:54     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-31 21:29     ` [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-31 21:29     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-31 21:29       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01  8:15       ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01  8:27         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-04-01  8:27           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-04-01 14:31           ` Alan Stern
2008-04-01 14:31           ` Alan Stern
2008-04-01 19:34             ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01 19:34             ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01 20:16           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 20:16           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 20:12         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 20:12         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 20:12           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 20:56           ` Alan Stern
2008-04-01 21:38             ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01 21:59               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 21:59               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 21:38             ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01 21:50             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-02 14:11               ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 14:22                 ` Oliver Neukum
2008-04-02 14:22                 ` Oliver Neukum [this message]
2008-04-02 14:22                   ` Oliver Neukum
2008-04-02 15:13                   ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 15:28                     ` Oliver Neukum
2008-04-02 16:42                       ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 16:42                       ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 16:42                         ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 20:11                         ` Oliver Neukum
2008-04-02 20:11                           ` Oliver Neukum
2008-04-02 20:28                           ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 20:28                             ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 20:28                           ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 20:11                         ` Oliver Neukum
2008-04-02 15:28                     ` Oliver Neukum
2008-04-02 15:13                   ` Alan Stern
2008-04-02 14:11               ` Alan Stern
2008-04-01 21:50             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 20:56           ` Alan Stern
2008-04-01 21:35           ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01 21:57             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 21:57             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 22:32               ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01 23:00                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 23:00                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 22:32               ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01 21:35           ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01  8:15       ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-04-01  8:37       ` Pavel Machek
2008-04-01 20:23         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01 20:23         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-01  8:37       ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-30  2:54   ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 5) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-29 22:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-29 22:22 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM: New suspend and hibernation callbacks for platform bus type (rev. 3) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-30  2:56   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-30  2:56   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-29 22:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-29 22:23 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] PM: New suspend and hibernation callbacks for PCI " Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-29 22:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200804021622.04461.oliver@neukum.org \
    --to=oliver@neukum.org \
    --cc=astarikovskiy@suse.de \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ncunningham@crca.org.au \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.