From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: suspend() and runtime_suspend()
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:38:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103232138.07980.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1103231125431.2211-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Wednesday, March 23, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Martin, LoicX wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I found those drivers:
> >
> > drivers/dma/intel_mid_dma.c
>
> This driver uses the legacy PM interface, and it appears that the
> runtime_suspend method was piggybacked on top of that. Consequently it
> was not done properly.
>
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-intel-mid.c
>
> This driver simply needs to be changed.
>
> You could write to the maintainers of these drivers, informing them of
> the problem.
>
> > drivers/staging/gma500/psb_drv.c
> > drivers/staging/gma500/psb_powermgmt.c
> > drivers/staging/intel_sst/intel_sst.c
>
> Nobody expects code in drivers/staging to be a paragon of good style.
> Again, you could write to the maintainers.
>
> > We are currently working on this purpose (runtime suspend/resume implementation), and our first understanding was not perfectly clear.
> > That's why I was asking about the correct implementation of those callback.
>
> There are plenty of other examples showing the right way to do it.
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > I have one more question about this part of the documentation:
> > >>However, the driver should not call the pm_runtime_allow() helper function unblocking
> > >>the runtime PM of the device. Instead, it should allow user space or some
> > >>platform-specific code to do that
> >
> > Is there any reason concerning the system stability or something else to do it that way instead of doing it in the driver during the probe ?
>
> People have had bad experiences with devices that don't work correctly
> with runtime-suspend. I don't know how well-behaved most PCI devices
> are in this regard,
Not very well. :-(
> but a lot of USB devices fail miserably. Hence the
> decision to have some subsystems forbid runtime-suspend by default,
> leaving userspace to decide whether runtime-suspend should be allowed.
>
> If you've got a driver for a device that you _know_ will work correctly
> with runtime-suspend, you can go ahead and call pm_runtime_allow()
> during probe.
Exactly.
Thanks for your patience. :-)
Rafael
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-23 20:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-21 9:10 suspend() and runtime_suspend() Martin, LoicX
2011-03-21 14:28 ` Alan Stern
2011-03-22 15:50 ` Martin, LoicX
2011-03-23 15:39 ` Alan Stern
2011-03-23 20:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
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=201103232138.07980.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/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