* Runtime PM status sysfs attribute @ 2010-07-01 17:16 Alan Stern 2010-07-01 18:54 ` Dominik Brodowski 2010-07-02 5:34 ` Oliver Neukum 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Alan Stern @ 2010-07-01 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dominik Brodowski; +Cc: Linux-pm mailing list Dominik: As runtime PM becomes more and more popular, it seems likely that people will want to know whether or not their devices are getting suspended. Or if not people, then programs like powertop. For that reason, it seems to make sense to build the runtime_status sysfs attribute even when CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG isn't enabled. Do you agree? Alan Stern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Runtime PM status sysfs attribute 2010-07-01 17:16 Runtime PM status sysfs attribute Alan Stern @ 2010-07-01 18:54 ` Dominik Brodowski 2010-07-01 20:23 ` Alan Stern 2010-07-02 5:34 ` Oliver Neukum 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Dominik Brodowski @ 2010-07-01 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Stern; +Cc: Linux-pm mailing list Alan, On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:16:31PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > As runtime PM becomes more and more popular, it seems likely that > people will want to know whether or not their devices are getting > suspended. Or if not people, then programs like powertop. > > For that reason, it seems to make sense to build the runtime_status > sysfs attribute even when CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG isn't enabled. Do > you agree? good idea; haven't looked at any dependencies yet, though... Best, Dominik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Runtime PM status sysfs attribute 2010-07-01 18:54 ` Dominik Brodowski @ 2010-07-01 20:23 ` Alan Stern 2010-07-01 21:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Alan Stern @ 2010-07-01 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dominik Brodowski; +Cc: Linux-pm mailing list On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Alan, > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:16:31PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > As runtime PM becomes more and more popular, it seems likely that > > people will want to know whether or not their devices are getting > > suspended. Or if not people, then programs like powertop. > > > > For that reason, it seems to make sense to build the runtime_status > > sysfs attribute even when CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG isn't enabled. Do > > you agree? > > good idea; haven't looked at any dependencies yet, though... Reading through the code shows there is a drawback: For subsystems that don't implement runtime PM, devices will always show up as "suspended". That's not going to be very useful, unfortunately. Still, for subsystems that _do_ implement runtime PM, there doesn't seem to be any other way to learn the current status of a device. Alan Stern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Runtime PM status sysfs attribute 2010-07-01 20:23 ` Alan Stern @ 2010-07-01 21:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2010-07-01 23:16 ` Alan Stern 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2010-07-01 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-pm; +Cc: Dominik Brodowski On Thursday, July 01, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > Alan, > > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:16:31PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > As runtime PM becomes more and more popular, it seems likely that > > > people will want to know whether or not their devices are getting > > > suspended. Or if not people, then programs like powertop. > > > > > > For that reason, it seems to make sense to build the runtime_status > > > sysfs attribute even when CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG isn't enabled. Do > > > you agree? > > > > good idea; haven't looked at any dependencies yet, though... > > Reading through the code shows there is a drawback: For subsystems that > don't implement runtime PM, devices will always show up as "suspended". > That's not going to be very useful, unfortunately. > > Still, for subsystems that _do_ implement runtime PM, there doesn't > seem to be any other way to learn the current status of a device. Perhaps we can rework the attribute to show "unknown" for devices that have power.disable_depth > 0 ? Rafael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Runtime PM status sysfs attribute 2010-07-01 21:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2010-07-01 23:16 ` Alan Stern 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Alan Stern @ 2010-07-01 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: linux-pm, Dominik Brodowski On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, July 01, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > > Alan, > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:16:31PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > As runtime PM becomes more and more popular, it seems likely that > > > > people will want to know whether or not their devices are getting > > > > suspended. Or if not people, then programs like powertop. > > > > > > > > For that reason, it seems to make sense to build the runtime_status > > > > sysfs attribute even when CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG isn't enabled. Do > > > > you agree? > > > > > > good idea; haven't looked at any dependencies yet, though... > > > > Reading through the code shows there is a drawback: For subsystems that > > don't implement runtime PM, devices will always show up as "suspended". > > That's not going to be very useful, unfortunately. > > > > Still, for subsystems that _do_ implement runtime PM, there doesn't > > seem to be any other way to learn the current status of a device. > > Perhaps we can rework the attribute to show "unknown" for devices that > have power.disable_depth > 0 ? That sounds reasonable. "disabled" is another possibility, but it doesn't express the right idea: The _status_ isn't what's disabled. Alan Stern ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Runtime PM status sysfs attribute 2010-07-01 17:16 Runtime PM status sysfs attribute Alan Stern 2010-07-01 18:54 ` Dominik Brodowski @ 2010-07-02 5:34 ` Oliver Neukum 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Oliver Neukum @ 2010-07-02 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-pm; +Cc: Dominik Brodowski Am Donnerstag, 1. Juli 2010, 19:16:31 schrieb Alan Stern: > Dominik: > > As runtime PM becomes more and more popular, it seems likely that > people will want to know whether or not their devices are getting > suspended. Or if not people, then programs like powertop. > > For that reason, it seems to make sense to build the runtime_status > sysfs attribute even when CONFIG_PM_ADVANCED_DEBUG isn't enabled. Do > you agree? For what it's worth, I think this is a good idea. Regards Oliver ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-07-02 5:34 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-07-01 17:16 Runtime PM status sysfs attribute Alan Stern 2010-07-01 18:54 ` Dominik Brodowski 2010-07-01 20:23 ` Alan Stern 2010-07-01 21:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2010-07-01 23:16 ` Alan Stern 2010-07-02 5:34 ` Oliver Neukum
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox