[linux-pm] Fundamental flaw in system suspend, exposed by freezer removal
Alan Stern
stern at rowland.harvard.edu
Mon Mar 3 15:12:31 PST 2008
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Perhaps it's better to include dpm_sysfs_add() into device_pm_add(), since we
> > > are going the make the return a result anyway?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Okay, I'll prepare a patch for that, on top of the one introducing the
> 'sleeping' field into 'struct dev_pm_info' (posting in a while).
While you're at it, could you add a field to indicate whether
begin_sleep() has been called? It would help prevent multiple calls to
that method when a race does occur, and it could be useful for drivers
as well.
> The question remains what we're going to do with the drivers without pm_ops
> pointers in the long run (in the short run we will use the legacy callbacks in
> that cases, if defined).
One possibility is to unbind those drivers at the start of a sleep
transition and reprobe them at the end. Another possibility is to
ignore the lack of PM support and hope it doesn't cause any problems.
Alan Stern
More information about the linux-pm
mailing list