Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:48322 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752110AbbHMNNt (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:13:49 -0400 Message-ID: <1439471624.2114.30.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20150813_151412_002676_828CF73F) Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/wireless: enable wiphy device to suspend/resume asynchronously From: Johannes Berg To: Emmanuel Grumbach , "Fu, Zhonghui" Cc: David Miller , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:13:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20150730_075551_447889_FECED471) References: <55B9B3BA.6080406@linux.intel.com> (sfid-20150730_075551_447889_FECED471) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 08:55 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Fu, Zhonghui > wrote: > > Enable wiphy device to suspend/resume asynchronously. This can > > improve > > system suspend/resume speed. > > > > How will that impact the timing with respect to the suspend call > coming from the bus? > I think that a few drivers rely on the suspend call of the wiphy > device happening before the suspend call to the bus device. > Yes, we can't do this for precisely this reason unless we have a way to somehow keep the dependency between the two - possibly by also marking the other one as async (although I don't know if the async framework in general has any FIFO guarantees, which would be required for this.) I've dropped the patch. johannes