From: Patrick Mochel <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Alan Cox <email@example.com> Cc: Jeff Garzik <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jeff Golds <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Problems with arch/i386/kernel/apm.c Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:48:31 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <E159We4-0000Ccfirstname.lastname@example.org> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > needed. What I am really desiring to know is if there are any devices > > > that depend on the apm::send_event(APM_NORMAL_RESUME) happening while > > > interrupts are disabled. > > > > Good spotting... If any devices depend on what you describe, I would > > argue that their drivers should handle that not the core apm code... > > The drivers can't handle it at the moment. I've been talking to many people > about this all hitting this sort of driver problem. > > I think the fix is to keep two classes of power management objects and do > the following > > Call each 'nonirq' suspend function > (aborting if need be) > cli() > Call each irq blocked suspend function > suspend It shouldn't be necessary to keep two classes of PM objects; instead walk the device tree twice on suspend. The first one is an opportunity for the driver to save any device state; a method to notify the driver that it's going to sleep (as some PPC people requested); or to do what it needs to with interrupts enabled. This also gives the system a graceful way to abort the process should any of the drivers complain that it absolutely cannot suspend (none of the devices will actually be powered off at that point). We then disable interrupts and walk the tree again, actually shutting off devices. This way, no special cases are made, and no partitioning of the power management objects is needed. > resume: > call each irq blocked resume function > sti(); > call each nonirq resume Is this really necessary? We should (note _should_) be able to enable interrupts, then walk the device tree to resume everything. Linus confirmed this assumption, but it may turn out to not be the case. If that is so, then it will be easy enough to do a two stage walk of the tree, like in suspend - one to power on the device and reinitialize it, the next to restore state and continue on once interrupts have been enabled. -pat
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-12 23:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2001-06-11 17:57 Jeff Golds 2001-06-11 18:11 ` Jeff Garzik 2001-06-11 18:42 ` Alan Cox 2001-06-12 23:48 ` Patrick Mochel [this message] 2001-06-14 8:18 ` Alan Cox 2001-06-11 19:37 ` John Fremlin
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=Pine.LNX.email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: Problems with arch/i386/kernel/apm.c' \ /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
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).