On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 03:32 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Define and document a new driver flag, DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM, to inform
> the PM core and middle layer code that the driver has something
> significant to do in its ->suspend and/or ->resume callbacks and
> runtime PM should be disabled for the device when these callbacks
> run.
>
> Setting DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM (in addition to DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND)
> causes runtime PM to be disabled for the device before invoking the
> driver's ->suspend callback for it and to be enabled again for it
> only after the driver's ->resume callback has returned. In addition
> to that, if the device is in runtime suspend right after disabling
> runtime PM for it (which means that there was no reason to resume it
> from runtime suspend beforehand), the invocation of the ->suspend
> callback will be skipped for it and it will be left in runtime
> suspend until the "noirq" phase of the subsequent system resume.
>
> If DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND is not set, DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM has no
> effect.
>
> + if (dev_pm_test_driver_flags(dev, DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND) &&
> + dev_pm_test_driver_flags(dev, DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM)) {
Wasn't interface designed to allow something like:
if (dev_pm_test_driver_flags(dev, DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND | DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM)) {
instead?
Does it make sense to have a separate definition for
DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND | DPM_FLAG_AVOID_RPM ?
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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
