On Friday, November 16, 2012 09:27:05 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 02:29 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:54:56 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 01:55 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 01:44:00 AM
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 09:03:44 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 00:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 04:45:01 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysoc
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 02:29 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:54:56 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 01:55 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 01:44:00 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:36
On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:54:56 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 01:55 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, November 16, 2012 01:44:00 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:36:14 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:51 +0100,
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 01:55 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 01:44:00 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:36:14 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >
> > > For this situat
On Friday, November 16, 2012 01:44:00 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:36:14 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
> >
> > For this situation, if user "echo auto > .../power/control" for the
> > device, the runtime
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 01:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:36:14 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 09:03:44 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 00:10 +0100, Rafa
On Friday, November 16, 2012 08:36:14 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 09:03:44 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 00:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 04:45:0
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 09:03:44 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 00:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 04:45:01 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysoc
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So it looks like what we want to do is:
> >
> > (1) Enable runtime PM in pci_pm_init() and set the status to RPM_ACTIVE
> > right
> > before, so that it is in agreement with the pm_runtime_forbid() we do in
> > there.
> >
> > (2) If user
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:51:42 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 09:03:44 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 00:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 04:45:01 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 09:03:44 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 00:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 04:45:01 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This has the side effect that when a driv
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 00:10 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 04:45:01 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > This has the side effect that when a driver unbinds, it can't leave the
> > > > device in a special low-power s
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 04:45:01 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > This has the side effect that when a driver unbinds, it can't leave the
> > > device in a special low-power state. The device will always end up in
> > > the generic low-power s
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This has the side effect that when a driver unbinds, it can't leave the
> > device in a special low-power state. The device will always end up in
> > the generic low-power state supported by the PCI core.
>
> Well, I'm not sure I'd like that.
>
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:42:33 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:07:54 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I'd like to revisit this for a while if you do
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:07:54 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I'd like to revisit this for a while if you don't mind.
Not at all.
> > Your revised patch does do the job, except for a f
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> > What changes specifically do you mean to be precise?
>
> I mean the following changes from Alan's email.
>
> pm_runtime_set_suspended should fail if dev->power.runtime_auto
> is clear.
>
> pm_runtime_forbid should call pm_runtim
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 10:52 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 09:08:28 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 11:10 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This is not quite right. Consider a device that is in r
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:07:54 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
I'd like to revisit this for a while if you don't mind.
> Your revised patch does do the job, except for a few problems.
> Namely, while local_pci_probe() and pci_device_remove() a
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 09:08:28 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 11:10 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> >
> > > > This is not quite right. Consider a device that is in runtime suspend
> > > > when a system sleep starts. When the system s
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 11:10 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > > This is not quite right. Consider a device that is in runtime suspend
> > > when a system sleep starts. When the system sleep ends, the device
> > > will be resumed but the PM core will still
On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:32:26 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > > > Is it absolute necessary to call pm_runtime_set_suspended? If the
> > > > device is disabled, the transition to SUSPENDED state will not be
> > > > triggered even if the device is ACTIVE.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> > This is not quite right. Consider a device that is in runtime suspend
> > when a system sleep starts. When the system sleep ends, the device
> > will be resumed but the PM core will still think its state is
> > SUSPENDED. The subsystem has to tell t
On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 21:32 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > Sorry, my original idea is:
> >
> > pm_runtime_disable will put device into SUSPENDED state if
> > dev->power.runtime_auto is clear. pm_runtime_allow will put
> > device into SUSPENDED
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> Sorry, my original idea is:
>
> pm_runtime_disable will put device into SUSPENDED state if
> dev->power.runtime_auto is clear. pm_runtime_allow will put
> device into SUSPENDED state if dev->power.disable_depth > 0.
That's close to what
On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 11:32 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > > > Is it absolute necessary to call pm_runtime_set_suspended? If the
> > > > device is disabled, the transition to SUSPENDED state will not be
> > > > triggered even if the device is ACTIVE.
> > >
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > Is it absolute necessary to call pm_runtime_set_suspended? If the
> > > device is disabled, the transition to SUSPENDED state will not be
> > > triggered even if the device is ACTIVE.
> >
> > It's not absolutely necessary to do this, but we ought to b
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 21:36 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > > The first question: How should the PCI subsystem prevent the parents of
> > > driverless VGA devices from being runtime suspended while userspace is
> > > accessing them?
> >
> > I think Rafael
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> > The first question: How should the PCI subsystem prevent the parents of
> > driverless VGA devices from being runtime suspended while userspace is
> > accessing them?
>
> I think Rafael's patch is good for that.
But his patch isn't needed if we make t
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 11:41 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 12:07 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > is it a good idea to allow to set device state to SUSPENDED if
> > > > >
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 12:07 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > > > is it a good idea to allow to set device state to SUSPENDED if the
> > > > > > device
> > > > > > is disabled?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 12:07 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > > is it a good idea to allow to set device state to SUSPENDED if the
> > > > > device
> > > > > is disabled?
> > > >
> > > > No, it is not. The status should always be ACTIVE as long as
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > is it a good idea to allow to set device state to SUSPENDED if the
> > > > device
> > > > is disabled?
> > >
> > > No, it is not. The status should always be ACTIVE as long as usage_count
> > > > 0.
That isn't strictly true, because pm_runt
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:04:36 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 02:35 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 08, 2012 09:15:08 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 00:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
> > > I think the patch can fix the i
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 02:35 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 08, 2012 09:15:08 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 00:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:51:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 07, 20
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 09:15:08 AM Huang Ying wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 00:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:51:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 04:56:49 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 00:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:51:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 04:56:49 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Right. The reasoning behind my pr
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:51:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 04:56:49 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > Right. The reasoning behind my proposal goes like this: When there's
> > > > no driver, the subsystem c
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 04:56:49 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Right. The reasoning behind my proposal goes like this: When there's
> > > no driver, the subsystem can let userspace directly control the
> > > device's power level through the po
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Right. The reasoning behind my proposal goes like this: When there's
> > no driver, the subsystem can let userspace directly control the
> > device's power level through the power/control attribute.
>
> Well, we might as well just leave the runtim
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 03:47:02 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:17:02 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The PCI subsystem assumes that
> > > > > driverless
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:17:02 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > The PCI subsystem assumes that
> > > > driverless devices are not in use, so they are disabled for runtime PM
> > > > and mar
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:17:02 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > The PCI subsystem assumes that
> > > driverless devices are not in use, so they are disabled for runtime PM
> > > and marked as suspended. This is not appropriate for VGA devices
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The PCI subsystem assumes that
> > driverless devices are not in use, so they are disabled for runtime PM
> > and marked as suspended. This is not appropriate for VGA devices,
> > which can indeed be used without a driver.
> >
> > I'm not sure
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:49:04 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > > > Devices will be disabled if the PCI driver is unbound from the PCI
> > > > device.
> > >
> > > Yes. But without a PCI driver, nothing will call
> > > pm_runtime_set_suspended.
> >
>
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > Devices will be disabled if the PCI driver is unbound from the PCI
> > > device.
> >
> > Yes. But without a PCI driver, nothing will call
> > pm_runtime_set_suspended.
>
> pm_runtime_set_suspended will be called in pci_device_remove or error
> path o
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:17 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 20:56 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> > >
> > > > In current runtime PM implementation, the active child count of the
> > > > parent devi
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 20:56 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> >
> > > In current runtime PM implementation, the active child count of the
> > > parent device may be decreased if the runtime PM of the child device
> > > is
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 20:56 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> > In current runtime PM implementation, the active child count of the
> > parent device may be decreased if the runtime PM of the child device
> > is disabled and forbidden. For example, to unbind a P
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> In current runtime PM implementation, the active child count of the
> parent device may be decreased if the runtime PM of the child device
> is disabled and forbidden. For example, to unbind a PCI driver with a
> PCI device, the following code path is possi
51 matches
Mail list logo
