On Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:42:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 08, 2014 05:20:43 PM Alan Stern wrote: > > 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(). > > Hmm. OK, let's try that. Well, no. The reason why that doesn't work is because ->prepare() callbacks are executed in the reverse order, so the perent's ones will be run before the ->prepare() of the children. Thus if ->prepare() sets the flag with the expectation that ->suspend() (and the subsequent callbacks) won't be executed, that expectation may not be met actually. So I'm going to do what I said above. I prefer it anyway. :-) Rafael -- 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
