Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759430AbXLaNrR (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:47:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752398AbXLaNrG (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:47:06 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:36503 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153AbXLaNrF (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:47:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:44:47 +0000 From: Pavel Machek To: Oliver Neukum Cc: kernel list , Linux-pm mailing list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC] sleepy linux Message-ID: <20071231144447.GD26339@ucw.cz> References: <20071225230731.GA29030@elf.ucw.cz> <200712271041.30923.oliver@neukum.org> <20071229235134.GC17823@ucw.cz> <200712301739.42192.oliver@neukum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200712301739.42192.oliver@neukum.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1766 Lines: 39 On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 00:51:34 schrieb Pavel Machek: > > Hi! > > > > > > ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the > > > > drivers are already suspended, right? > > > > > > Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm. > > > They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them these > > > operations mean saving/restoring state. > > > So for these devices implementing autosuspend makes no sense. > > > They would sensibly do only idle/busy detection. > > > > Yep... Let's call busy/idle detection and save/restore state > > "autosuspend" for those devices. It does not save any power, but it > > can be viewed as "kind-of-suspend". (No, I do not have this kind of > > details ready). > > Well, you probably would have to walk through all devices and check > all devices are either suspended or can be suspended. That would mean > struct device has to be extended to show common attributes. > > But what's wrong with calling suspend() the conventional way once you've > decided to go into sleepy mode? I'm not sure if it can be done in non-racy way. It is different from "conventional" suspend(): you can still have userland requests after this suspend(), and you should abort auto-sleep if you get one. (As opposed to blocking in system suspend case). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/