From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [patch update 2 fix] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:32:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200906211332.46249.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0906202223080.20502-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 20 June 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Some more thoughts...
> > >
> > > Magnus, you might have some insights here. It occurred to me that some
> > > devices can switch power levels very quickly, and the drivers might
> > > therefore want the runtime suspend and resume methods to be called as
> > > soon as possible, even in interrupt context.
> >
> > Then, we'll need special suspend and resume calls for them.
>
> Good idea. pm_runtime_resume_atomic() and pm_runtime_suspend_atomic().
> No need for _request variants since the status should never be
> RPM_SUSPENDING or RPM_RESUMING while the lock is released.
Yes, exactly. I also thought of the same names. :-)
> > > Similarly, we should insure that runtime PM calls made before the
> > > device is registered don't do anything. So when the device structure
> > > is first created and the contents are all 0, this should also be
> > > interpreted as an exceptional state. We could call it RPM_UNREGISTERED
> > > and use it for both purposes.
> >
> > Hmm. How do you think is possible that the pm_runtime_* functions will be
> > called in such a situation?
>
> By mistake. :-)
>
> Seriously, there _are_ places where drivers get bound to device before
> those devices are registered. This happens for example in USB when a
> bunch of related interfaces are present in the same physical device.
> When the first interface is registered, its driver binds itself to all
> the others even though they haven't been registered yet.
Well, the suspend functions could be protected against that under the
assumption that no suspend is possible for resume_counter = 0 (then, the "good
to go" value would be -1).
Still, the resume functions start from acquring a spinlock, which is not going
to work if that spinlock is uninitialized.
Best,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-21 11:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-13 22:23 [PATCH] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-14 9:41 ` Magnus Damm
2009-06-14 10:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-14 9:58 ` [linux-pm] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-14 22:57 ` [patch update] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-14 23:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-06-15 20:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-15 21:08 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-15 23:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-16 14:30 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-16 21:30 ` [patch update 2] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-16 22:33 ` [patch update 2 fix] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-17 20:08 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-17 23:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-18 18:17 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-19 0:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-19 16:25 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-19 22:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-20 2:34 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-20 14:30 ` [linux-pm] " Alan Stern
2009-06-20 23:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-21 2:30 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-21 11:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2009-06-22 14:16 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-22 15:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-22 15:39 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-22 15:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-22 6:20 ` Magnus Damm
2009-06-22 6:43 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-06-22 7:27 ` Magnus Damm
2009-06-22 13:49 ` [linux-pm] " Arjan van de Ven
2009-06-22 15:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-22 15:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-22 8:15 ` Oliver Neukum
2009-06-20 23:38 ` [patch update 3] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-21 2:23 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-21 12:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-22 15:01 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-22 15:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-22 16:28 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-22 23:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-23 17:02 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-23 17:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-23 18:26 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-24 0:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-24 14:51 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-24 19:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-24 20:19 ` Alan Stern
2009-06-24 21:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-24 15:04 ` [patch update] " Pavel Machek
2009-06-27 21:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-06 8:28 ` Pavel Machek
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=200906211332.46249.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox