Thread (50 messages) 50 messages, 6 authors, 2012-02-23

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] PM / Runtime: Introduce flag can_power_off

From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Date: 2012-02-14 07:11:44
Also in: linux-scsi, lkml

Hi, Alan,

On 一, 2012-02-13 at 15:41 -0500, 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).
Right!
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)?
Surely it shouldn't in this case.
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?
My opinion is that the concept of "no-power state" is unique for all
devices/buses/platforms.
If any of them support this, they can use the routines without any
confusion.

thanks,
rui

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help