| Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/12] PM / core: Add AVOID_RPM driver flag | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:33:17 +0300 |
| |
On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 03:32 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Define and document a new driver flag, DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM, to inform > the PM core and middle layer code that the driver has something > significant to do in its ->suspend and/or ->resume callbacks and > runtime PM should be disabled for the device when these callbacks > run. > > Setting DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM (in addition to DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND) > causes runtime PM to be disabled for the device before invoking the > driver's ->suspend callback for it and to be enabled again for it > only after the driver's ->resume callback has returned. In addition > to that, if the device is in runtime suspend right after disabling > runtime PM for it (which means that there was no reason to resume it > from runtime suspend beforehand), the invocation of the ->suspend > callback will be skipped for it and it will be left in runtime > suspend until the "noirq" phase of the subsequent system resume. > > If DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND is not set, DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM has no > effect. >
> + if (dev_pm_test_driver_flags(dev, DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND) && > + dev_pm_test_driver_flags(dev, DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM)) {
Wasn't interface designed to allow something like: if (dev_pm_test_driver_flags(dev, DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND | DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM)) { instead?
Does it make sense to have a separate definition for DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND | DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM ?
-- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
|