On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > If the child knows about the problem beforehand, it can runtime-resume
> > the parent during its ->suspend.
>
> Well, it even should do that in those cases. We may need to deal with
> children
> that don't do that, though.
>
> > > Well, if
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If the child knows about the problem beforehand, it can runtime-resume
the parent during its -suspend.
Well, it even should do that in those cases. We may need to deal with
children
that don't do that, though.
Well, if
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 05:17:03 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > Still, I think that something like power.fast_suspend is needed to
> > > > indicate
> > > > that .suspend_late(), .suspend_noirq(), .resume_noirq() and
> > > > .resume_early()
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Still, I think that something like power.fast_suspend is needed to
> > > indicate
> > > that .suspend_late(), .suspend_noirq(), .resume_noirq() and
> > > .resume_early()
> > > should be skipped for it (in my opinion the core may very well skip
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:49:05 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > I admit, there most likely _are_ devices that would get into trouble if
> > > the question ever did arise.
> >
> > Well, I kind of put that to a test by posting these two
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I admit, there most likely _are_ devices that would get into trouble if
> > the question ever did arise.
>
> Well, I kind of put that to a test by posting these two patches:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3705261/
>
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I admit, there most likely _are_ devices that would get into trouble if
the question ever did arise.
Well, I kind of put that to a test by posting these two patches:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3705261/
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:49:05 AM Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I admit, there most likely _are_ devices that would get into trouble if
the question ever did arise.
Well, I kind of put that to a test by posting these two patches:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Still, I think that something like power.fast_suspend is needed to
indicate
that .suspend_late(), .suspend_noirq(), .resume_noirq() and
.resume_early()
should be skipped for it (in my opinion the core may very well skip them
then)
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 05:17:03 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Still, I think that something like power.fast_suspend is needed to
indicate
that .suspend_late(), .suspend_noirq(), .resume_noirq() and
.resume_early()
should be
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:08:14 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > This discussion is getting a little messy. Let's try to clarify it.
> > > Here is the major point:
> > >
> > > We would like to save time during system suspend/resume by
> >
>
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This discussion is getting a little messy. Let's try to clarify it.
> > Here is the major point:
> >
> > We would like to save time during system suspend/resume by
>
> Actually, that's not only about saving time, but also about saving
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This discussion is getting a little messy. Let's try to clarify it.
Here is the major point:
We would like to save time during system suspend/resume by
Actually, that's not only about saving time, but also about saving energy.
Sure.
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:08:14 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This discussion is getting a little messy. Let's try to clarify it.
Here is the major point:
We would like to save time during system suspend/resume by
Actually, that's
On Monday, February 24, 2014 02:36:02 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Also, it may not do that today and I'd like to introduce a mechanism by
> > which
> > that optimizatiom may be enabled by subsystems/drivers when ready.
> >
> > So for example today
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Also, it may not do that today and I'd like to introduce a mechanism by which
> that optimizatiom may be enabled by subsystems/drivers when ready.
>
> So for example today there is no guarantee that each device will be resumed
> as appropriate by
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Also, it may not do that today and I'd like to introduce a mechanism by which
that optimizatiom may be enabled by subsystems/drivers when ready.
So for example today there is no guarantee that each device will be resumed
as appropriate by
On Monday, February 24, 2014 02:36:02 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Also, it may not do that today and I'd like to introduce a mechanism by
which
that optimizatiom may be enabled by subsystems/drivers when ready.
So for example today there is no
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:03:37 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > >
> > > > Currently,
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:03:37 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > >
> > > Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
> > > resume all
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 02:23:30 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > >
> > > Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
> > resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
> >
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
> resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
> because those devices may need to be reprogrammed due to different
> wakeup
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
because those devices may need to be reprogrammed due to
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
resume all runtime-suspended devices during system
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 02:23:30 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01:20 PM Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 01:59:36 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 17 February 2014 00:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
> > resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
> >
On 17 February 2014 00:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
> resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
> because those devices may need to be reprogrammed due to different
>
On 17 February 2014 00:50, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
because those devices may need to
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 01:59:36 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:50, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
resume all runtime-suspended devices
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
because those devices may need to be reprogrammed due to different
wakeup settings for system sleep and for runtime PM. However, at
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
because those devices may need to be reprogrammed due to different
wakeup settings for system sleep and for
34 matches
Mail list logo
