On Thursday, May 15, 2014 02:06:59 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Do we want to allow ->prepare() to return > 0 if the device isn't
> > runtime suspended? If we do then non-suspended devices may be a common
> > case. We should then avoid the extra overhead of disable + enable.
> > So I would write:
> >
> > if (dev->power.direct_complete) {
> > if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
> > pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> > if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1
> > && pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
> > goto Complete;
> > pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> > }
> > dev->power.direct_complete = false;
> > }
> >
>
> I am wondering whether the above pm_runtime_disable|enable actually
> belongs better in driver/subsystem in favour of the PM core?
No, it doesn't.
> Doesn't the driver/subsystem anyway needs to be on top of what goes
> on? Typically, while runtime PM has been disabled, that might affect
> it's wakeup handling? Or this case are already handled due to other
> circumstances?
Yes, that's the case.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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
