From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:14:09 +1000 Message-ID: <1183972449.5961.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1183929708.3388.306.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200707090852.03429.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200707090852.03429.oliver@neukum.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Matthew Garrett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kyle Moffett , Pavel Machek , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 08:52 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > > Another issue that's been a problem forever with suspend is the > > synchronous request_firmware interface. Lots of drivers do that in > > resume() which will generally not work. > > Unfortunately yes they do. We now have the notifier chains, which > can be used. Firmware, especially if it is large, must be requested > while the system is still fully functional and paging will work. > > Asynchronocity will not help much because the devices must work > after resumingand delaying that will not help with respect to needing > devices to get at the firmware. True, pre-loading is the best approach. Ben.