From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: VT switchless suspend/resume Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1359819248-3714-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.38.55]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73CB5E5D27 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 07:34:20 -0800 (PST) List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Finally got around to updating these patches here at FOSDEM. I made the core PM support for this into a function so multiple drivers can indicate their support and we'll be conservative about doing the switch if no drivers call in or if any driver indicates it can't support VT switchless suspend/resume. Please check the logic in my pm_vt_switch_required function; I try to handle several cases: 1) no driver calls the routine (should VT switch) 2) driver requires it but then unbinds and clears its req, a subsequent driver that doesn't require VT switching should have its switchless behavior honored (shouldn't VT switch) 3) multiple drivers call in with different reqs (should VT switch) 4) multiple or single drivers call in that don't require VT switching (shouldn't VT switch) Still need to add calls to some other drivers, so if this looks ok I can do that. Thanks, Jesse