From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Information in PM messages Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:25:34 -0700 Message-ID: <200606131025.35106.david-b@pacbell.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday 09 June 2006 7:24 am, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Brownell wrote: > = > > > A message whose source is USER or DRIVER should not be > > > allowed to resume a device that was suspended by a message > > > whose source was SYSTEM. In other words, runtime PM and > > > autoresume should not interfere with a system sleep transition. > > = > > Why wouldn't that be entirely the driver's responsibility, and > > something they don't need API changes to achieve? > = > Perhaps we don't need to worry about this. > = > After all, in most cases it's impossible for a device which is suspended > as part of a system-sleep transition to get either a runtime-PM resume or > an autoresume request. It can only happen in situations where the > system-sleep did not first freeze all tasks. In those situations people > may agree that it is acceptable for the sleep transition to be aborted by > a user request or an autoresume. > = > If that is so then yes, we don't need to alter the PM message structures > in this way. I think that's pretty much what I was saying by insisting that the driver's PM state transitions have to be correct... invalid transtions will always be invalid, regardless of whether or not the API gets complexified! :) - Dave