Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752615Ab0HIF3u (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 01:29:50 -0400 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:37476 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751775Ab0HIF3t convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 01:29:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201008082117.39082.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <201008082117.39082.rjw@sisk.pl> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:29:48 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alan Stern , Matthew Garrett , david@lang.hm, "Paul E. McKenney" , Arjan van de Ven , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, florian@mickler.org, swetland@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2591 Lines: 60 2010/8/8 Rafael J. Wysocki : > On Saturday, August 07, 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: >> 2010/8/7 Arve Hj?nnev?g : >> > 2010/8/7 Rafael J. Wysocki : >> >> On Saturday, August 07, 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: >> >>> 2010/8/6 Alan Stern : >> >>> > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: >> ... >> >>> >> total_time, total time the wake lock has been active. This one should >> >>> >> be obvious. >> >>> > >> >>> > Also easily added. >> >>> > >> >>> Only with a handle passed to all the calls. >> >> >> >> Well, I'm kind of tired of this "my solution is the only acceptable one" >> >> mindset. ?IMHO, it's totally counter productive. >> >> >> > >> > How do you propose to track how long a driver has blocked suspend when >> > you have an unblock call that takes no arguments. >> > >> >> Also, I did not not see a response to my question about why you don't >> want to pass a handle. > > It doesn't really matter what I personally want. ?In fact, I'm not totally > opposed to that idea, although there are disadvantages (eg. a "handle" > would really mean a pointer to an object with certain life cycle that needs to > be managed by the caller and it's not that clear to me who should manage the > objects that the PCI wakeup code would pass to pm_wakeup_event(), for one Wouldn't a single global handle work for the way you are handling pci wakeup events? It looked like you just reset a global timeout every time a pci wakeup event occurs. > example). ?I sent a pull request for your original patchset to Linus after all. :-) > > I said I didn't think "it would fly", meaning that I was afraid the other kernel > developers wouldn't like that change. > > The reason why I think so is that you'd like to add a whole new infrastructure > whose only purpose would be debugging that would only be useful to systems > using opportunistic suspend. ?That, however, is only Android right now and it > cannot use the mainline kernel for other reasons, so basically we would add > infrastructure that's useful to no one. > I'm not sure what you mean by this. The debugging is useful for anyone using the api, not just Android, and a handle is also needed to mix timeouts and pm_relax. The handle can be the device, but some drivers need several handles per device. -- Arve Hj?nnev?g -- 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/