Hi Vivien,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 5 Feb 2019
11:28:57 -0500:
> Hi Miquel,
>
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 12:07:28 +0100, Miquel Raynal <miquel.ray...@bootlin.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +/* There is no suspend to RAM support at DSA level yet, the switch
> > configuration
> > + * would be lost after a power cycle so prevent it to be suspended.
> > + */
> > +static int __maybe_unused mv88e6xxx_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int __maybe_unused mv88e6xxx_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> The code looks good but my only concern is -EOPNOTSUPP. In this
> context this code is specific to callbacks targeting bridge and
> switchdev, while the dev_pm_ops are completely parallel to DSA.
>
> It is intuitive but given Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt, this
> will default to being interpreted as a fatal error, while -EBUSY
> seems to keep the device in an 'active' state in a saner way.
>
> I don't understand yet how to properly tell PM core that suspend to RAM
> isn't supported. If an error code different from -EAGAIN or -EBUSY
> is the way to go, I'm good with it:
I do share your concern and I went through the Documentation but I did
not find a unified way to tell the PM core the feature is unsupported.
By grepping code, I realized returning -EOPNOTSUPP was a recurrent
alternative so here we are. I also considered -EBUSY but it seems more
like a "I cannot right now" and -EAGAIN which is more a "try again
soon". Anyway, no matter the error code returned, I'm not sure if the PM
core actually cares?
> Reviewed-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vivien
Thanks,
Miquèl
