2015-01-16 16:36 GMT+08:00 Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>: > [...] > >>>> + pm_runtime_set_active(&pdev->dev); >>>> + pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev); >>>> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev); >>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to pm_runtime_get_sync: %d\n", ret); >>> >>> As I stated earlier I think this is a strange behaviour of how to >>> implement runtime PM support. Could you elaborate one more time why >>> this actually is needed? >> >> Thanks for pointing out this. >> We studied again and realized that this runtime PM support was only there for >> powerdomain management, but we have not yet upstreamed the powerdomain >> support. Thus we would like to remove it in next version. > > I am fine with you removing the runtime PM support in the next > version. I also hope you to upstream the power domain support later > on, that would be nice. > > A small note: > From a driver perspective, you shall be able to implement runtime PM > support even if you haven't upstreamed the power domain support yet. > But, let's then deal with that as a separate patch later on. Yes, I got it. Thanks a lot for your review and comments! Kind regards Vincent > > Kind regards > Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
