From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:37:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 00/04][RFC] PM: Runtime platform device PM Message-Id: <20090602213722.GA1972@ucw.cz> List-Id: References: <20090527100625.29671.43166.sendpatchset@rx1.opensource.se> In-Reply-To: <20090527100625.29671.43166.sendpatchset@rx1.opensource.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > In the process of discussing a similar interface for OMAP, we dicussed > > that having 3 states would be more useful. =A0Specifically, and > > _enable(), _idle() and _disable() hook. =A0The _enable() and _idle() > > hooks being exactly what you proposed above, but with the addition of > > a _disable() hook which says not only can the device go idle, but that > > the driver is really finished with the device. =A0In this case, more > > aggresive PM measures could be taken, such as turning of regulators > > that may have long latencies that may not be appropriate to turn off > > in idle. >=20 > Hm.. I wonder when the driver is really finished with the device > though. Only when the module is unloaded? If so then we could deal > with the hard disable using platform bus notifiers (like in [04/04]). I'd guess that they call disable() when /dev node is closed... and idle() when device is opened but inactive. --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html