On Monday, February 13, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

quoted

I'm not sure if this is really the right approach.  What you're trying 
to do is implement two different low-power states, basically D3hot and 
D3cold.  Currently the runtime PM core doesn't support such things; all 
it knows about is low power and full power.

I'd rather say all it knows about is "suspended" and "active", which mean
"the device is not processing I/O" and "the device may be processing I/O",
respectively.  A "suspended" device may or may not be in a low-power state,
but the runtime PM core doesn't care about that.

Yes, okay.  We can say that this patch tries to implement two different 
"suspended" states, basically "low power" and "power off" (or D3hot and 
D3cold).

quoted

quoted

Before doing an ad-hoc implementation, it would be best to step back
and think about other subsystems.  Other sorts of devices may well have
multiple low-power states.  What's the best way for this to be
supported by the PM core?

Well, I honestly don't think there's any way they all can be covered at the
same time and that's why we chose to support only "suspended" and "active"
as defined above.  The handling of multiple low-power states must be
implemented outside of the runtime PM core (like in the PCI core, for example).

That's the point.  If this is to be implemented outside of the runtime
PM core, should the patch be allowed to add new fields to struct
dev_pm_info (which has to be shared among all subsystems)?

Or to put it another way, if we do add new fields to struct dev_pm_info
(like can_power_off) in order to help support multiple "suspended"  
states, shouldn't these new fields be such that they can be used by
many different subsystems rather than being special for the
full-power/no-power situation?

Likewise, should new routines like pm_runtime_allow_power_off() be
added to the runtime PM core if they are going to be used just by PCI?

No, they shouldn't.

Thanks,
Rafael