On Thu, 8 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Wait a minute. Following ->runtime_suspend(), you are going to call > > > ->suspend() and then ->runtime_resume()? That doesn't seem like what > > > you really want; a ->suspend() call should always have a matching > > > ->resume(). > > > > Yes, it should, but I didn't see any other way to do that. > > Actually, that's kind of easy to resolve. :-) > > When ->suspend() leaves power.leave_runtime_suspended set, the PM core can > simply skip the early/late and noirq callbacks and then call ->resume() > that will be responsible for using whatever is necessary to resume the > device. > > And perhaps the flag should be called something different then, like > direct_resume (meaning go directly for ->resume() without executing > the intermediate callbacks)? In light of what I wrote earlier, it should be okay for the ->prepare() callback to be responsible for setting leave_runtime_suspended. Then there will be no need to call either ->suspend() or ->resume(). Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
