On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, June 18, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, June 18, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > ... > > > > Well, assuming that https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/893722/ is applied, > > which is going to be, I think we can put > > > > + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev); > > + pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > > > in device_resume() after the dev->power.is_suspended check and > > pm_runtime_put_noidle() under the End label. That cause them to > > be called under the device lock, but that shouldn't be a big deal. > > > > Accordingly, we can call pm_runtime_disable(dev) in __device_suspend(), > > right next to the setting of power.is_suspended. > > > > This is implemented by the patch below. > > Well, it hangs suspend on my Toshiba test box, I'm not sure why exactly. > > This happens even if the pm_runtime_disable() is replaced with a version > that only increments the disable depth, so it looks like something down > the road relies on disable_depth being zero. Which is worrisome. This is a sign that the PM subsystem is getting a little too complicated. :-( > Trying to figure out what the problem is I noticed that, for example, > the generic PM operations use pm_runtime_suspended() to decide whether or > not to execute system suspend callbacks, so the patch below would break it. > > Also, after commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 the > pm_runtime_suspended() check in __pm_generic_call() doesn't really make > sense. In light of the recent changes, we should revisit the decisions behind the generic PM operations. Alan Stern -- 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
