* Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> [160204 22:55]: > 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? I think you should be able to test this case in your test driver by calling pm_runtime_resume() for your test driver after your test drive has autosuspended. Probably you need some delayed_work to do this in your test driver unless you have some test bus to go with it. > Or we should probably continue to focus on fixing the regression. :-) Naturally we should fix up things yeah :) Having a test driver that works on any architecture sure makes things easier to verify. Regards, Tony -- 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
