CCing some PM people, maybe they can comment? On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 25 June 2012 06:20 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> >> Do you know how the drivers should handle CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME=n? >> Are they supposed to handle the error values returned by runtime PM >> functions somehow, or should they use #ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME? > > hmm, I always though with CONFIG_RUNTIME_PM=n, the functions would > be stubbed to return success and not failure. And the _pm_runtime_resume > function indeed seems to return 1, which is not failure but just saying > that your device is already active/enabled. > The _pm_runtime_suspend and _pm_runtime_idle do return a -ENOSYS, which > is something only returned when CONFIG_RUNTIME_PM=n, so if you really > want to handle failing pm_runtime_put_sync cases, maybe you still can. > But then, I don't know if there is anything you can do to recover from > a failing pm_runtime_put_sync, except for warning the user maybe. > >> Both options sound a bit difficult to me... With the first one it's >> difficult to see if there was an actual error and we should somehow >> react to it, or is everything fine and we just shouldn't care about >> runtime PM. The second one requires ifdefs in many places. -- Gražvydas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
