From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272937AbTGaJmw (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:42:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272946AbTGaJmw (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:42:52 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.iol.cz ([194.228.2.86]:22737 "EHLO smtp-out1.iol.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272937AbTGaJmu (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 05:42:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:42:31 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: David Brownell Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Alan Stern , Dominik Brugger , kernel list , linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: OHCI problems with suspend/resume Message-ID: <20030731094231.GA464@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1059153629.528.2.camel@gaston> <3F21B3BF.1030104@pacbell.net> <20030726210123.GD266@elf.ucw.cz> <3F288CAB.6020401@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F288CAB.6020401@pacbell.net> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > >>root; and resume in the reverse order. Is that behaving now? > > > > > >Yes. > > Well, partially; but it's not used consistently. Could you > (or someone) explain what the plan is? I see: > > - Three separate x86 PM "initiators": APM, ACPI, swsusp. > (Plus ones for ARM and MIPS.) > > - Two driver registration infrastructures, the driver model > stuff and the older pm_*() stuff. > > The pm_*() is how a handful of sound drivers and other random > stuff register themselves -- and how PCI does it. > > I'd sure have expected PCI to only use the driver model stuff, > and I'll hope all those users will all be phased out by the > time that 2.6 gets near the end of its test cycle. Ouch, PCI really should use new driver model. I have not known about that. I'll look into it. > The "initiators" all talk to _both_ infrastructures, but they > don't talk to the driver model stuff in the same way. For > example, on suspend: > > - ACPI issues a NOTIFY, which can veto the suspend; > then SAVE_STATE, ditto; finally POWER_DOWN. > > - APM uses the pm_*() calls for a vetoable check, > never issues SAVE_STATE, then goes POWER_DOWN. IIRC, I had SAVE_STATE there at some point, and there was some problem. I do not really use APM :-(. > - While swsusp is more like ACPI except that it doesn't > support vetoing from either NOTIFY or SAVE_STATE. Good. I figured vetoing support is not critical. I should add it. > That all seems more problematic to me. Seems to me that > APM should issue SAVE_STATE (and RESTORE_STATE), and all > three PM "initiators" should agree on vetoing. Yes, agreed. > All of which is a roundabout way of adding to what I > said: the PM infrastructure USB will need to rely on > seems like it needs polishing yet! :) Do you need vetoing? Otherwise it should be ready, except for APM. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]