Am Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 21:36:20 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Am Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 18:22:51 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > >
> > > > This has an interesting implication. As the storage driver can share
> >
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 18:22:51 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > > This has an interesting implication. As the storage driver can share
> > > a device with in principle any other usb driver, we must audit all
Am Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 18:22:51 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > This has an interesting implication. As the storage driver can share
> > a device with in principle any other usb driver, we must audit all usb
> > drivers if we wish to adopt this patch.
> >
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> This has an interesting implication. As the storage driver can share
> a device with in principle any other usb driver, we must audit all usb
> drivers if we wish to adopt this patch.
> All a device's interfaces must be resumed when the storage interface
Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> When all the devices under a host are suspended, the LLD is informed
> (via a new "autosuspend" method in the host template) so that it can
> put the host adapter in a low-power state. Likewise, a new
> "autoresume" method is called when
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > In fact suspend methods already do take an argument specifying the
> > reason they were called. It wouldn't be hard to add a couple of extra
> > PM_EVENT_* values for manual suspend and autosuspend. The problem is
> > that resume methods don't take a
> > > When all the devices under a host are suspended, the LLD is informed
> > > (via a new "autosuspend" method in the host template) so that it can
> >
> > That is most certainly a mistake.
>
> Why?
>
> > Is there a good reason to not modify
> > to extend suspend() to take an extra argument
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > How about something more like this:
> >
> > * Resume (return to an operational power level) the specified host,
> > * and prevent autosuspends from other software layers until the
> > * template autosuspend method has been called again.
> > *
Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>> Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
>> > /**
>> > + * autoresume - perform dynamic (runtime) host resume
[...]
>> This seems to be a bit misleading. It seems to me that you must cancel
>> any outstanding request
Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2008 16:16:43 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > What about the SG_IO ioctl() ? It seems to me that you must not autosuspend
> > a device after that ioctl() has been used until the file handle is closed.
>
> That's an open problem. The patch does block autosuspends as long as
> an sg
Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2008 16:12:52 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > /**
> > > + * autoresume - perform dynamic (runtime) host resume
> > > + [EMAIL PROTECTED]: host to resume
> > > + *
> > > + *
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > This patch applies to 2.6.24-rc6. Comments and suggestions are
> > welcome.
>
> What about the SG_IO ioctl() ? It seems to me that you must not autosuspend
> a device after that ioctl() has bee
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > /**
> > + * autoresume - perform dynamic (runtime) host resume
> > + [EMAIL PROTECTED]: host to resume
> > + *
> > + * Resume (return to an operational power level) the specified host.
>
Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2008 16:06:53 schrieb Alan Stern:
> Eventually parts of the autosuspend mechanism will go there. But first
> I thought we should have a proof-of-concept version working for at
> least two different subsystems (such as SCSI and USB), so that we can
> understand what should go
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2008 04:56:03 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > You'll have to add this method whenever a new subsystem is affected
> > > by power management.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand your point. If you mean that we'll have to
> > add autosuspen
Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> This patch applies to 2.6.24-rc6. Comments and suggestions are
> welcome.
What about the SG_IO ioctl() ? It seems to me that you must not autosuspend
a device after that ioctl() has been used until the file handle is closed.
Regar
Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> /**
> + * autoresume - perform dynamic (runtime) host resume
> + [EMAIL PROTECTED]: host to resume
> + *
> + * Resume (return to an operational power level) the specified host.
> + * Return 0 if the resume was successful, otherwi
Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2008 04:56:03 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > You'll have to add this method whenever a new subsystem is affected
> > by power management.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand your point. If you mean that we'll have to
> add autosuspend and autoresume code to every driver that wants to
>
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 22:34:52 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > > Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > When all the devices under a host are suspended, the LLD is informed
> > > > (vi
Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 22:34:52 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > When all the devices under a host are suspended, the LLD is informed
> > > (via a new "autosuspend" method in the host template) so
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > When all the devices under a host are suspended, the LLD is informed
> > (via a new "autosuspend" method in the host template) so that it can
>
> That is most certainly a mistake.
Why?
> Is th
Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 20:42:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> When all the devices under a host are suspended, the LLD is informed
> (via a new "autosuspend" method in the host template) so that it can
That is most certainly a mistake. Is there a good reason to not modify
to extend suspend() to take a
This patch is a first pass at SCSI dynamic (or runtime) PM. The new
code is enabled by a Kconfig option, CONFIG_SCSI_DYNAMIC_PM, in the top
SCSI menu. If the option isn't selected then the overhead is
essentially zero (in a few places code that was in-line gets moved
out-of-line, but not in a
23 matches
Mail list logo
