From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:35:56 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Keith Busch , Linux PCI , ACPI Devel Maling List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PCI/DPC: Disable interrupt generation during suspend Message-ID: <20180320113556.GA24197@wunner.de> References: <20180314114125.71132-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20180314120547.GB2703@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20180314123332.GC19651@wunner.de> <20180320104508.GF2703@lahna.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180320104508.GF2703@lahna.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:45:08PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:48:49PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Have you considered putting these things into the ->suspend_late and > > > > ->resume_early callbacks, respectively? > > > > > > > > That might be slightly better as runtime resume is still enabled when > > > > the ->suspend and ->resume callbacks run. > > > > > > There is no ->suspend_late or ->resume_early callbacks in struct > > > pcie_port_service_driver so I followed what drivers/pci/pcie/pme.c is > > > doing. I guess we could add those callbacks as well if you think they > > > are better suited here. > > I took a look and then realized that we most probably do not need the > custom portdrv specific hooks at all. They are basically doing the same > than what PM core is (iterate over children and call service driver PM > hook). I don't see any reason why we could not rely on the PM core ops > instead of these custom ones but maybe I'm missing something. Can't think of a reason why this solution shouldn't work, I must have been blind not to see it. Lukas