Message-ID: <1440401918.3735.0.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/wireless: enable wiphy device to suspend/resume
 asynchronously
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: "Fu, Zhonghui" <zhonghui.fu@linux.intel.com>,
        Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:38:38 +0200
In-Reply-To: <55DA9374.2060909@linux.intel.com>
References: <55B9B3BA.6080406@linux.intel.com>
		 <CANUX_P3PMsvWCWWciwCsRvf5PqLVEK9d9S=2Gbq+EotVGffEow@mail.gmail.com>
		 <55D13D66.1050500@linux.intel.com>
	 <1439796553.2451.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <55D19F57.4070605@broadcom.com>
	 <55DA9374.2060909@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2413
Lines: 60

On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 11:45 +0800, Fu, Zhonghui wrote:
> 
> On 2015/8/17 16:46, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > + Rafael
> > 
> > On 08/17/2015 09:29 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 09:48 +0800, Fu, Zhonghui wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The suspend/resume timing of wiphy device and related devices 
> > > > will be
> > > > ensured by their parent/child relationship. So, enabling wiphy 
> > > > device
> > > > to suspend/resume asynchronously does not change any 
> > > >  dependency. It
> > > > can only take advantage of multicore and improve system
> > > > suspend/resume speed.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You're going to have to explain that to me, because I don't see 
> > > that.
> > > All I see is that when looking at a device, if async is possible, 
> > > it
> > > gets added to an async work, and if async is not possible then it 
> > > gets
> > > done immediately. Even putting aside the question of whether or 
> > > not
> > > async is ordered or not (I don't know), if the wiphy is async and 
> > > the
> > > PCI (or other bus) device isn't, then it seems they could get 
> > > handled
> > > out of order, no? Or is there some magic code somewhere that I'm
> > > missing that explicitly waits for the async of the parent/child
> > > relationship?
> > 
> > This patch got me worried as well. Can't find the magic either. 
> > Maybe Rafael can give some hints here.
> 
> "dpm_wait_for_children" function will be invoked in 
> "__device_suspend", "__device_suspend_late", and 
> "__device_suspend_noirq" functions to synchronize the child 
> relationship. "dpm_wait" function will be invoked in 
> "device_resume_noirq", "device_resume_early", and "device_resume" 
> functions to synchronize the parent relationship. If two devices have 
> parent/child relationship, but different suspend/resume mode(sync or 
> async), this will have no impact to PM timing order between them. 
> Because all devices will use "__device_suspend", 
> "__device_suspend_late" ... functions to complete their PM 
> transition.
> 

Ok, good point. For the unaware here, can you please resend with a
commit message amended with some of this information?

thanks,
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/