On Mon, 19 May 2014, Jacob Pan wrote: > > Wouldn't that go a bit too far? It seems to be based on the > > assumption that all devices having no ->prepare() callback can be > > safely left in runtime suspend over a system suspend/resume cycle, > > but is that assumption actually satisfied for all such devices? > > > yes, I agree it is risky though i don't see problems with my limited > testing. But on the other side, it is too strict. > I also tried adding .prepare( return 1;) to usb_ep_device_type pm ops, > that didn't work either. The reason is that ep devices don't support > runtime pm (disable_depth > 0). I think in this case ignore_children > flag should be the right indicator to ignore pm_runtime_suspended()? Maybe it would be better to add a new flag that means "This is a virtual device and the PM core can ignore it completely". 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
