From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:59:50 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.37-rc6+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in>, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
        linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <AANLkTinyDE3OxKup_aqsN8HJH_r5LcwkP17OtuMRpACx@mail.gmail.com> <201012181354.58077.rjw@sisk.pl> <20101218132029.GA22273@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101218132029.GA22273@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201012181559.50347.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2142
Lines: 46

On Saturday, December 18, 2010, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 01:54:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 18, 2010, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > SPI and platform (the first two buses I looked at) both seem to have
> > > legacy suspend operations too?  Clearly the bus would need to provide an
> > > op to invoke the legacy call but the logic which prioritises the pm_ops
> > > over the legacy operation is generic.
> 
> > Well, the problem with that is the driver would need to tell the generic call
> > what the legacy routine is and there's no, er, generic way to do that.
> 
> > In the i2c case, for example, there is struct i2c_driver that contains the
> > ->suspend() and ->resume() pointers, so the bus type driver _knows_ how to
> > get there, but the PM core doesn't have this information.
> 
> Sure, but this could be readily accomplished by providing bus
> legacy_suspend() and legacy_resume() operations that the generic code
> could use to do the actual call.

First, there already are ->suspend() and ->resume() callbacks in
struct bus_type which are regarded as "legacy".  The PM core uses those as
appropriate in drivers/base/power/main.c .

Second, the situation at hand is that the bus type implements dev_pm_ops,
but the driver doesn't.  Now, pm_generic_suspend() is called with a struct
device pointer, so it would have to go back to dev->bus, find the
->legacy_suspend() callback (as opposed to ->suspend(), which also is legacy,
but is called by the PM core instead).  May I call that confusing?

> This would save them all implmeneting
> essentially the same decision making code for all the various different 
> PM operations - the only bit that differs between buses is going to be
> the actual process for calling the legacy API.
> 
> Like I say, I'm not sure if it's actually worth it.

Well, I don't really think so.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/