Re: [RFC][PATCH] Power domains for platform bus type

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:16:51PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Monday, January 31, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Monday, January 31, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

quoted

One thing about this implementation is slightly questionable.  The new
power_domain callbacks were added to the __weak platform PM routines,
which means they will have to be included in every overriding routine
provided by a platform imiplementation.

Would it be better to separate these things?  Have the power_domain 
callbacks occur in a static outer function which then calls a public 
__weak inner function that can be overridden?

That certainly is a good idea, but I wasn't sure how to do that.  It looks
like I could keep the __weak functions as they are and modify
platform_dev_pm_ops instead to point to a new set of function that in turn
would call the __weak ones.  For example, the .suspend pointer in
platform_dev_pm_ops might point to a new function, say
platform_pm_full_suspend() that would call the power domain functions and
the "original" platform_pm_suspend().  Is that what you mean?

Yes.  But what about the platform_bus_set_pm_ops() interface?  Should
platform-specific replacements for the pm_ops functions also include
the power_domain callbacks?

Well, whoever uses platform_bus_set_pm_ops(), he can simply prevent power
domains from being used by not defining them in the first place. :-)

But what about the case where the user _does_ want to have power
domains?

Ah, OK.  The caller of platform_bus_set_pm_ops() will replace the original
platform_dev_pm_ops with his own set of operations, so he will not see the
power domains.

quoted

Do you want to make the replacement routines responsible for
invoking the power-domain callbacks, or should the platform core handle
this automatically?

Well, if someone replaces the entire platform_dev_pm_ops object, this means
that on his platform power management is substantially different from the
generic one.  In that case, IMO, he should be responsible for handling all
of the subsystem-level aspects of power management, including power domains.

Part of point of doing something like power_domain is to *get rid* of
platform_bus_set_pm_ops().  It is a horrid, stop-gap interface that
doesn't scale.  I don't think much consideration needs to be made for
users of platform_bus_set_pm_ops() in this regard.

g.