On 5 February 2016 at 02:08, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> [160204 14:35]: >> On 4 February 2016 at 23:09, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >> >> I am really not questioning the autosuspend feature at all, it's a >> >> really great feature! >> >> >> >> Now, I question the minor benefit we actually gain from having the >> >> runtime PM core to update the mark in rpm_resume(). >> > >> > As Tony pointed out, it prevents some devices from going to sleep right >> > away. >> >> Because their drivers don't care to update the last busy mark!? > > Nope. Without that devices may never resume at all so the drivers > can't do anything about it. I don't get it. Why not? Because of another abuse of the runtime PM API? Or we should probably continue to focus on fixing the regression. :-) Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
