[PATCH] PM / Sleep: Fall back to subsystem level PM callbacks for PM domains
ulf.hansson at linaro.org
Wed May 21 02:36:20 PDT 2014
On 30 April 2014 14:15, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 30 April 2014 00:52, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:47:28 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 25, 2014 12:44:55 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> > Previously once the PM core found a PM domain pointer for a device,
>>> > but which didn't have a valid PM callback, it falled back to try the
>>> > driver's PM callback.
>>> > In this scenario, change the behavior of the PM core to try out the
>>> > other subsystem level PM callbacks, before it moves on to the driver.
>>> > This gives provision for PM domains to easier re-use subsystem level
>>> > code to handle the needed operations.
>>> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>
>>> Are you sure this is not going to break the existing PM domains?
> I have checked the current implementations of the PM domains - all are
> providing the PM callbacks. So this should be safe.
>> And even if it isn't, the idea behind PM domains was to provide a mechanism to
>> bypass the bus types' (etc) PM callbacks, so I'm not liking this patch at all.
> I understand your view, it's the current mindset we have of the
> hierarchy of handling the callbacks. I am wondering if it's time to
> reconsider. :-)
> To be clear, I don't want to prevent the PM domain from bypassing bus,
> types etc, that's should be up to each implementation to decide, and
> this patch won't affect that behaviour.
> I intend to only simplify for those PM domains that want to re-use the
> callbacks from bus, types. etc. Currently that's the most of them.
> Those ARM SOCs that implements PM domains, which don't use the generic
> power domain, cares only about platform devices attached to the
> platform_bus_type. These are copying the callbacks from the
> platform_bus_type (using the USE_PLATFORM_PM_SLEEP_OPS macro) - I
> assume this is because they need to handle legacy suspend/resume.
> An actual copy of the bus' PM callbacks to the PM domain's callbacks also exist.
> That leaves the generic power domain and acpi power domain, which
> don't re-use callbacks, but have their own set.
> The more complicated scenario have not yet been implemented - but I
> can see it coming. :-)
> That's when the PM domain wants to re-use callbacks for whatever bus,
> types etc, the device is attached to.
> To handle this, the PM domain will have to re-implement the code for
> walking the hierarchy of callbacks, which is a bit messy. This patch
> will make it possible for the PM domain to rely on the PM core to
> handle this instead.
Just wanted to understand if you are still considering this patch or
if think it's the wrong approach?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel