From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
torvalds@osdl.org, kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you?
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:27:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030825172737.E16790@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308250840360.1157-100000@cherise>; from mochel@osdl.org on Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:47:16AM -0700
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:47:16AM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > There is a hell of a lot of work which now needs to be done to re-fix
> > everything which was working. For example, there is no sign of any
> > power management for platform devices currently. Could you give some
> > clues as to what you'd like to see there?
>
> How about following the system device scheme: 1 call, with interrupts
> disabled?
I don't think that's going to work well when you have more conventional
devices below a platform device which need to be power managed (eg, a
USB host.)
I think we need to expand the platform device support to include the
notion of platform drivers. For example:
struct platform_driver {
int (*probe)(struct platform_device *);
int (*remove)(struct platform_device *);
int (*suspend)(struct platform_device *, u32);
int (*resume)(struct platform_device *);
struct device_driver drv;
};
(Aside: I like the movement of the suspend/resume methods to the bus_type,
and I'd like to see the probe/remove methods also move there. For the
vast majority of cases, the probe/remove methods in struct device_driver
end up pointing at the same functions for any particular bus.)
> > There's also a fair number of drivers to update to this new power
> > management model - eg, ARM device drivers, PCMCIA socket drivers to
> > name just two.
>
> That's fine. I will fix PCMCIA, as I have devices to test with. I have no
> ARM devices (nor do I want any). I can take a stab, but won't guarantee
> anything. Could you tell me, though, when/if these devices did work with
> what power management scheme? APM?
I know it works on ARM, but, since APM is completely fscked in 2.6
kernels and no one seems to be interested in the issue, its something
I can't test on x86.
> > We also need to fix the device model probing so we can have a generic
> > PCI bridge driver but override it if we have a more specific driver.
>
> We talked about that, and it's going to require some changes to the core,
> albeit small. We're not prepared to do that right now, though we'll
> reconsider depending on necessity and impact of the patch..
Bear in mind that Red Hat kernels contain a generic PCI bridge driver
in order to save its state across suspend/resume, and that the PPC
people also seem to need it. Also bear in mind that the Mobility Docks
have some non-standard configuration controls in their PCI-PCI bridge
which needs a vendor specific PCI-PCI bridge driver.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-25 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-22 21:08 [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you? Pavel Machek
2003-08-22 21:25 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-08-22 21:53 ` Pavel Machek
2003-08-22 22:05 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-08-23 1:03 ` Nigel Cunningham
2003-08-23 16:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-08-25 19:05 ` [PM] powering down special devices Patrick Mochel
2003-08-25 19:53 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-08-25 9:52 ` [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you? Pavel Machek
2003-08-22 22:10 ` Pavel Machek
2003-08-22 22:13 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-08-22 22:17 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-08-22 22:36 ` Pavel Machek
2003-08-23 10:47 ` Russell King
2003-08-24 11:54 ` Russell King
2003-08-26 15:39 ` [PM] Config Options Patrick Mochel
2003-08-24 12:08 ` [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you? Russell King
2003-08-25 15:47 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-08-25 16:27 ` Russell King [this message]
2003-08-25 16:57 ` Matt Porter
2003-08-25 17:14 ` Russell King
2003-08-25 17:34 ` Matt Porter
2003-08-28 15:38 ` Platform Devices Patrick Mochel
2003-09-01 12:02 ` [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you? Pavel Machek
2003-09-02 17:41 ` Jens Axboe
2003-09-09 20:19 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-09-09 20:24 ` Jens Axboe
2003-09-09 21:43 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-09-09 22:54 ` Pavel Machek
2003-09-09 23:07 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-09-09 23:07 ` [PM] Passing suspend level down to drivers Pavel Machek
2003-09-09 23:23 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-09-10 0:06 ` Pavel Machek
2003-09-10 6:12 ` Stephen Rothwell
2003-09-10 11:48 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-09 23:15 ` [PM] Patrick: which part of "maintainer" and "peer review" needs explaining to you? Alan Cox
2003-09-09 22:56 ` Pavel Machek
2003-08-25 17:16 ` Russell King
2003-08-22 22:04 ` Timothy Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030825172737.E16790@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mochel@osdl.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).