Subject: [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] PM / Domains: Extend API pm_genpd_dev_need_restore to use restore types

From: [email-masked] (Sylwester Nawrocki)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:05:18 +0100

On 18/12/14 01:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> What's needed to solve this problem is a generalized way to have runtime
>>>> > >> PM dependencies between devices.  Runtime PM already automatically
>>>> > >> handles parent devices as one type of dependent device (e.g. a parent
>>>> > >> device needs to be runtime PM resumed before its child.)  So what's
>>>> > >> needed is a generic way to other PM dependencies with the runtime PM
>>>> > >> core (not the genpd core.)
>>> > >
>>> > > Considering the example above with three devices, device D1 and D2 are
>>> > > passive components in this power domain. These devices only need to
>>> > > know the state changes of the power domains but would not control the
>>> > > power domain themselves nor put forth constraints in the power domain
>>> > > state changes. So I did not clearly understand as to how this example
>>> > > could be solved by introducing changes in runtime PM core.
>> > 
>> > Your solution only solves the problems for devices managed by genpd.
>> > 
>> > If I understood your example correctly, what you really want to solve
>> > this problem more generically is to be able to tell the runtime PM core
>> > that D3 has a dependency on D1 and D2.  Then, whenver the runtime PM
>> > core is doing get/put operations for D3, it needs to also do them for D1
>> > and D2.

Indeed, I think it would solve most of the problems if we were able to
model the PM dependencies between devices which would then be handled
in the PM core.  I recall something like this has been proposed a while
ago [1].

>> > This will accomplish the same as your proposed approach, but work for
>> > any devices in any PM domains.
>
> Plus, it is not limited to runtime PM, really.  It affects system suspend
> too.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/26/485

-- 
Regards,
Sylwester