Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
6 дек. 2013 г., в 23:40, Justin Hibbits jhibb...@freebsd.org написал(а): On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Justin Hibbits jhibb...@freebsd.org wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. Thanks for your work! What is the estimated time when it will go HEAD? May I expect that my powerbook4,1 machine will get ability to sleep under the FreeBSD now? However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't thin Also, any comments are of course welcome. Technical concerns are obviously welcome, and I will try to address everything. Thanks, Justin Thanks to hrs@, images are now available for the pmac_pmu project on allbsd for i386, amd64, sparc64, and ia64: https://pub.allbsd.org/FreeBSD-snapshots/ . I understand that you provided these so people with another archs could test whether it doesn't break anything, but what about actual PPC users? ;) Considering that powerpc is a Tier 2 these days, it's not that easy even to get svn quickly for it to grab your tree, so I would ask adding projects_pmac_pmu to the powerpc building. Thanks. - Justin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:12 AM, lausg...@gmail.com wrote: 6 дек. 2013 г., в 23:40, Justin Hibbits jhibb...@freebsd.org написал(а): On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Justin Hibbits jhibb...@freebsd.org wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. Thanks for your work! What is the estimated time when it will go HEAD? May I expect that my powerbook4,1 machine will get ability to sleep under the FreeBSD now? However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't thin Also, any comments are of course welcome. Technical concerns are obviously welcome, and I will try to address everything. Thanks, Justin Thanks to hrs@, images are now available for the pmac_pmu project on allbsd for i386, amd64, sparc64, and ia64: https://pub.allbsd.org/FreeBSD-snapshots/ . I understand that you provided these so people with another archs could test whether it doesn't break anything, but what about actual PPC users? ;) Considering that powerpc is a Tier 2 these days, it's not that easy even to get svn quickly for it to grab your tree, so I would ask adding projects_pmac_pmu to the powerpc building. Thanks. There were some design decisions that people took issue with, so I've been working on that. I plan to merge the bulk of the work into HEAD soon, but only the driver suspend/resume routines. The additional updates for suspending the system as a whole won't be made for some time, due to the intrusiveness of the change. I'm still planning for this to be completed for the 11.0 release, and with the bulk of the work completed, that should be feasible. I don't have a PowerBook4,1 to test with, but I think it should work, but some drivers may not resume properly. - Justin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 8:22:41 pm Justin Hibbits wrote: On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:15:47 -0500 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:40:30 pm Justin Hibbits wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:21:13 am Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. I have patches to change many x86 drivers to use EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() FWIW. Also, I'm still not a fan of the EAGAIN approach. I'd rather have a method in bus_if.m to suspend or resume a single device and to track that a device is suspended or resumed via a device_t flag or some such. (I think I had suggested this previously as it would also allow us to have a tool to suspend/resume individual drivers at runtime apart from a full suspend/resume request). -- John Baldwin Understood. You had mentioned something along those lines before. Is it safe/sane to partially merge a branch into HEAD? If so, I can merge only the changes necessary for PMU cpufreq, and work on the suspend/resume separately. I put them together because most of the low level code involved is the same between them. Yes, you can split them up. However, the way to do that is to generate a diff and patch that into a head checkout and commit. There's not a good way to have 'svn merge' do it AFAIK. I do like your idea of a device_t flag, but I'm not sure what the best way to go with that would be. I do already use a device_t flag to determine if the device is suspended, but only bus_generic_* access that in this patch. Would a better way be: * root_suspend instead of suspending its children, instead traverses and suspends each descendent in reverse order. * While doing this, insert each device upon successful suspend into a list. * For root_resume(), traverse the list back, and suspend each device in the reverse order. I would rather do it more the way that multipass attach now works where you do scans of the entire device tree as you walk the pass number down (during suspend) suspending any devices that are not yet suspended if their pass number is = current pass number, then on resume you do scans of the entire tree raising the pass number back up using similar logic to attach where you resume any suspended devices if the driver's pass number is = current pass number. With this, add a new method, called device_suspend_child() to suspend a specific child if it hasn't already been suspended. Well, I would call it 'bus_suspend_child' and 'bus_resume_child' as these would be bus methods in bus_if.m. * This could require modifying the PCI driver to move the device child suspend/resume into those functions, instead of doing that logic in the device_suspend/device_resume itself. Correct. bus_generic_suspend() and bus_suspend_resume() would turn into loops that look a lot like bus_generic_new_pass() (so the logic for honoring pass numbers would happen in these routines and they would invoke bus_suspend_child() and bus_resume_child() to change the state of individual drivers). device_suspend() and device_resume() for the root device would look like bus_set_pass() with a similar loop that walked through the pass levels and invoked bus_generic_suspend/resume after each pass change to start the pass across the device tree. I guess, in short, I'm asking: Is it fine if I merge only the code necessary for this
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:15:47 -0500 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:40:30 pm Justin Hibbits wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:21:13 am Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. I have patches to change many x86 drivers to use EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() FWIW. Also, I'm still not a fan of the EAGAIN approach. I'd rather have a method in bus_if.m to suspend or resume a single device and to track that a device is suspended or resumed via a device_t flag or some such. (I think I had suggested this previously as it would also allow us to have a tool to suspend/resume individual drivers at runtime apart from a full suspend/resume request). -- John Baldwin Understood. You had mentioned something along those lines before. Is it safe/sane to partially merge a branch into HEAD? If so, I can merge only the changes necessary for PMU cpufreq, and work on the suspend/resume separately. I put them together because most of the low level code involved is the same between them. Yes, you can split them up. However, the way to do that is to generate a diff and patch that into a head checkout and commit. There's not a good way to have 'svn merge' do it AFAIK. I do like your idea of a device_t flag, but I'm not sure what the best way to go with that would be. I do already use a device_t flag to determine if the device is suspended, but only bus_generic_* access that in this patch. Would a better way be: * root_suspend instead of suspending its children, instead traverses and suspends each descendent in reverse order. * While doing this, insert each device upon successful suspend into a list. * For root_resume(), traverse the list back, and suspend each device in the reverse order. I would rather do it more the way that multipass attach now works where you do scans of the entire device tree as you walk the pass number down (during suspend) suspending any devices that are not yet suspended if their pass number is = current pass number, then on resume you do scans of the entire tree raising the pass number back up using similar logic to attach where you resume any suspended devices if the driver's pass number is = current pass number. With this, add a new method, called device_suspend_child() to suspend a specific child if it hasn't already been suspended. Well, I would call it 'bus_suspend_child' and 'bus_resume_child' as these would be bus methods in bus_if.m. * This could require modifying the PCI driver to move the device child suspend/resume into those functions, instead of doing that logic in the device_suspend/device_resume itself. Correct. bus_generic_suspend() and bus_suspend_resume() would turn into loops that look a lot like bus_generic_new_pass() (so the logic for honoring pass numbers would happen in these routines and they would invoke bus_suspend_child() and bus_resume_child() to change the state of individual drivers). device_suspend() and device_resume() for the root device would look like bus_set_pass() with a similar loop that walked through the pass levels and invoked bus_generic_suspend/resume after each pass change to start the pass across the device tree. I guess, in short, I'm asking: Is it fine if I merge only the code necessary for this cpufreq? That would require making other changes to this before merging in, to isolate that code, but it's very doable. - Justin John, Would it make
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:40:30 pm Justin Hibbits wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:21:13 am Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. I have patches to change many x86 drivers to use EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() FWIW. Also, I'm still not a fan of the EAGAIN approach. I'd rather have a method in bus_if.m to suspend or resume a single device and to track that a device is suspended or resumed via a device_t flag or some such. (I think I had suggested this previously as it would also allow us to have a tool to suspend/resume individual drivers at runtime apart from a full suspend/resume request). -- John Baldwin Understood. You had mentioned something along those lines before. Is it safe/sane to partially merge a branch into HEAD? If so, I can merge only the changes necessary for PMU cpufreq, and work on the suspend/resume separately. I put them together because most of the low level code involved is the same between them. Yes, you can split them up. However, the way to do that is to generate a diff and patch that into a head checkout and commit. There's not a good way to have 'svn merge' do it AFAIK. I do like your idea of a device_t flag, but I'm not sure what the best way to go with that would be. I do already use a device_t flag to determine if the device is suspended, but only bus_generic_* access that in this patch. Would a better way be: * root_suspend instead of suspending its children, instead traverses and suspends each descendent in reverse order. * While doing this, insert each device upon successful suspend into a list. * For root_resume(), traverse the list back, and suspend each device in the reverse order. I would rather do it more the way that multipass attach now works where you do scans of the entire device tree as you walk the pass number down (during suspend) suspending any devices that are not yet suspended if their pass number is = current pass number, then on resume you do scans of the entire tree raising the pass number back up using similar logic to attach where you resume any suspended devices if the driver's pass number is = current pass number. With this, add a new method, called device_suspend_child() to suspend a specific child if it hasn't already been suspended. Well, I would call it 'bus_suspend_child' and 'bus_resume_child' as these would be bus methods in bus_if.m. * This could require modifying the PCI driver to move the device child suspend/resume into those functions, instead of doing that logic in the device_suspend/device_resume itself. Correct. bus_generic_suspend() and bus_suspend_resume() would turn into loops that look a lot like bus_generic_new_pass() (so the logic for honoring pass numbers would happen in these routines and they would invoke bus_suspend_child() and bus_resume_child() to change the state of individual drivers). device_suspend() and device_resume() for the root device would look like bus_set_pass() with a similar loop that walked through the pass levels and invoked bus_generic_suspend/resume after each pass change to start the pass across the device tree. I guess, in short, I'm asking: Is it fine if I merge only the code necessary for this cpufreq? That would require making other changes to this before merging in, to isolate that code, but it's very doable. - Justin -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 03:48:54PM -0800, Justin Hibbits wrote: On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 14:38:53 +0100 Marius Strobl mar...@alchemy.franken.de wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:21:13PM -0800, Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. Also, any comments are of course welcome. Technical concerns are obviously welcome, and I will try to address everything. Do you have a patch against head? Marius Here you go. Thanks; on a sparc64 machine where the EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE nexus actually matters, your patch doesn't seem to have an ill effect. Marius ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:21:13 am Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. I have patches to change many x86 drivers to use EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() FWIW. Also, I'm still not a fan of the EAGAIN approach. I'd rather have a method in bus_if.m to suspend or resume a single device and to track that a device is suspended or resumed via a device_t flag or some such. (I think I had suggested this previously as it would also allow us to have a tool to suspend/resume individual drivers at runtime apart from a full suspend/resume request). -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:21:13 am Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. I have patches to change many x86 drivers to use EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() FWIW. Also, I'm still not a fan of the EAGAIN approach. I'd rather have a method in bus_if.m to suspend or resume a single device and to track that a device is suspended or resumed via a device_t flag or some such. (I think I had suggested this previously as it would also allow us to have a tool to suspend/resume individual drivers at runtime apart from a full suspend/resume request). -- John Baldwin Understood. You had mentioned something along those lines before. Is it safe/sane to partially merge a branch into HEAD? If so, I can merge only the changes necessary for PMU cpufreq, and work on the suspend/resume separately. I put them together because most of the low level code involved is the same between them. I do like your idea of a device_t flag, but I'm not sure what the best way to go with that would be. I do already use a device_t flag to determine if the device is suspended, but only bus_generic_* access that in this patch. Would a better way be: * root_suspend instead of suspending its children, instead traverses and suspends each descendent in reverse order. * While doing this, insert each device upon successful suspend into a list. * For root_resume(), traverse the list back, and suspend each device in the reverse order. With this, add a new method, called device_suspend_child() to suspend a specific child if it hasn't already been suspended. * This could require modifying the PCI driver to move the device child suspend/resume into those functions, instead of doing that logic in the device_suspend/device_resume itself. I guess, in short, I'm asking: Is it fine if I merge only the code necessary for this cpufreq? That would require making other changes to this before merging in, to isolate that code, but it's very doable. - Justin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: Also, I'm still not a fan of the EAGAIN approach. I'd rather have a method in bus_if.m to suspend or resume a single device and to track that a device is suspended or resumed via a device_t flag or some such. (I think I had suggested this previously as it would also allow us to have a tool to suspend/resume individual drivers at runtime apart from a full suspend/resume request). Anything that made it easier to test suspend/resume would be a huge bonus. Tim ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:21:13PM -0800, Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. Also, any comments are of course welcome. Technical concerns are obviously welcome, and I will try to address everything. Do you have a patch against head? Marius ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Dec 8, 2013 5:39 AM, Marius Strobl mar...@alchemy.franken.de wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:21:13PM -0800, Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. Also, any comments are of course welcome. Technical concerns are obviously welcome, and I will try to address everything. Do you have a patch against head? Marius I can generate one today. - Justin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Dec 8, 2013 3:48 PM, Justin Hibbits chmeeed...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 14:38:53 +0100 Marius Strobl mar...@alchemy.franken.de wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:21:13PM -0800, Justin Hibbits wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't think that it would impact x86 at all (testing is obviously required), because the nexus is not an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE, so all devices would be handled at the same pass. But, I do know the sparc64 has an EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE() nexus, so that will likely be impacted. Also, any comments are of course welcome. Technical concerns are obviously welcome, and I will try to address everything. Do you have a patch against head? Marius Here you go. - Justin Oh I must add that this was just a merge, I didn't try compiling this merge, but there were no conflicts so it should build. But images are up on allbsd.org for people to test. -Justin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Request for testing an alternate branch
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Justin Hibbits jhibb...@freebsd.org wrote: I've been working on the projects/pmac_pmu branch for some time now to add suspend/resume as well as CPU speed change for certain PowerPC machines, about a year since I created the branch, and now it's stable enough that I want to merge it into HEAD, hence this request. However, it does touch several drivers, turning them into early drivers, such that they can be initialized, and suspended and resumed at a different time. Saying that, I do need testing from other architectures, to make sure I haven't broken anything. The technical details: To get proper ordering, I've extended the bus_generic_suspend() and bus_generic_resume() to do multiple passes. Devices which cannot be enabled or disabled at the current pass level would return an EAGAIN. This could possibly cause problems, since it's an addition to an existing API rather than a new API to run along side it, so it needs a great deal of testing. It works fine on PowerPC, but I don't have any i386/amd64 or sparc64 hardware to test it on, so would like others who do to test it. I don't thin Also, any comments are of course welcome. Technical concerns are obviously welcome, and I will try to address everything. Thanks, Justin Thanks to hrs@, images are now available for the pmac_pmu project on allbsd for i386, amd64, sparc64, and ia64: https://pub.allbsd.org/FreeBSD-snapshots/ . - Justin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
