On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 16:51 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted text
> > His proposed solution (freezing tasks when they cross the kernel
> > boundary) helps for the s-t-r case, but in fact doesn't solve (1)
> > because devices can be suspended at runtime
>=20
> This is a different thing and a different infrastructure is needed for it=
 (not
quoted text
> present at the moment).

Yeah I should've said "any of his proposed solutions"

quoted text
> > and then you certainly do not want to freeze tasks that try to access t=
he
quoted text
> > device.=20
> >=20
> > (2) is related but not identical, what if you have a device suspended a=
t
quoted text
> > runtime and some tasks tries to access it; should the task block until
> > you wake up that device?
>=20
> I think the device should be woken up in that case.

Ah, but that also means the device has to actually know about it.

quoted text
> > I think the core of the discussion isn't appreciated by everybody here
> > yet---we need to solve both run-time and suspend-to-ram-time device
> > suspend, not just one of them.
>=20
> For now, we're discussing the suspend-to-ram-time suspend only, for which
> we have (some) infrastrcuture (and which should be supported by all drive=
rs,
quoted text
> IMO).

Right but if we solve the run-time suspend case in favour of having the
device driver know about it then the suspend-to-ram-time suspend case
solves itself.

johannes