Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753660Ab1CJTEh (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:04:37 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:47801 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752933Ab1CJTE1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:04:27 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Kay Sievers Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Allow subsystems to avoid using sysdevs for defining "core" PM callbacks Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:04:25 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.38-rc8+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: LKML , Len Brown , Greg KH , Jesse Barnes , Linux PM mailing list , "H. Peter Anvin" , mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de References: <201103100131.58206.rjw@sisk.pl> <1299762315.1875.14.camel@zag> In-Reply-To: <1299762315.1875.14.camel@zag> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103102004.26144.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3189 Lines: 61 On Thursday, March 10, 2011, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 01:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > There are multiple problems with sysdevs, or struct sys_device objects to > > be precise, that are so annoying that some people have started to think > > of removind them entirely from the kernel. To me, personally, the most > > obvious issue is the way sysdevs are used for defining suspend/resume > > callbacks to be executed with one CPU on-line and interrupts disabled. > > Greg and Kay may tell you more about the other problems with sysdevs. :-) > > > > Some subsystems need to carry out certain operations during suspend after > > we've disabled non-boot CPUs and interrupts have been switched off on the > > only on-line one. Currently, the only way to achieve that is to define > > sysdev suspend/resume callbacks, but this is cumbersome and inefficient. > > Namely, to do that, one has to define a sysdev class providing the callbacks > > and a sysdev actually using them, which is excessively complicated. Moreover, > > the sysdev suspend/resume callbacks take arguments that are not really used > > by the majority of subsystems defining sysdev suspend/resume callbacks > > (or even if they are used, they don't really _need_ to be used, so they > > are simply unnecessary). Of course, if a sysdev is only defined to provide > > suspend/resume (and maybe shutdown) callbacks, there's no real reason why > > it should show up in sysfs. > > > > For this reason, I thought it would be a good idea to provide a simpler > > interface for subsystems to define "very late" suspend callbacks and > > "very early" resume callbacks (and "very late" shutdown callbacks as well) > > without the entire bloat related to sysdevs. The interface is introduced > > by the first of the following patches, while the second patch converts some > > sysdev users related to the x86 architecture to using the new interface. > > > > I believe that call sysdev users who need to define suspend/resume/shutdown > > callbacks may be converted to using the interface provided by the first patch, > > which in turn should allow us to convert the remaining sysdev functionality > > into "normal" struct device interfaces. Still, even if that turns out to be > > too complicated, the bloat reduction resulting from the second patch kind of > > shows that moving at least some sysdev users to a simpler interface (like in > > the first patch) is a good idea anyway. > > Do I read that right? We get rid of the entire dance of creating > sysdevs/sysdev_classes and the pointless and broken stuff in /sys? That's the plan at least. > We just dynamically maintain a list of devices/operations, which is > list-executed when needed? > > These new "core" operations are not included in every device but only > global per subsystem, just like the sysdev_class did earlier? Yup. > Looks all like a nice plan to me. Good. :-) 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/