Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)
- From: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:42:15 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 17:13:11 schrieb Alan Stern:
Basically yes. Subsystems and drivers are allowed to keep devices
suspended if they were suspended before the system went to sleep.
Remember, the purpose of the resume method is to let drivers know that
the system is now awake, not to force them to put their devices into a
high-power state.
Well, sometimes it is exactly that what we desire, eg. as a side effect
of lsusb. Should the callbacks have different semantics depending on
the reason you call them? And how should that information be transferred?
Which callbacks are you referring to? When lsusb opens a device and
does an autoresume, it does not call the same routine as the PM core
does when resuming from a system sleep. lsusb ends up calling
usb_autoresume_device() whereas the PM core ends up calling
usb_resume(), which is the function you quoted earlier.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86_64 boot -v2: Add linked list of struct setup_data
- Next by Date: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell OProfile: SPU mutex lock fix
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
