On Wednesday 23 March 2005 12:29 pm, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 06:06, David Brownell wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 March 2005 4:52 pm, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > > > > > I think the core should always call ->suspend() for a device, regardless > > > of whether it thinks it's in a low power state, or inactive. This is > > > specifically for the reason that a device could be a low-power runtime > > > state when the system is suspended. > > > > I don't quite see a need for this. If the parent/bridge driver knows > > the device is adequately suspended, why kick it again? It's actually > > rather annoying -- and error/bug prone! -- to have to code drivers to > > detect and cope with superfluous suspend calls. > > I would think it would be simpler not to have the parent/bridge check > whether the device is already suspended, and to just have all the logic > that decides what to do in the driver. I'm only thinking intuitively, > but it sounds like that should help with avoiding race conditions. Maybe the solution should involve a parent/child handshake; that'd be the place to address potential races, and it could include the notification folk seem to want. You're suggesting a tradeoff which shifts work from the bridges, which won't be numerous, to the drivers, which will be. I still don't see a need to do that, and I'd rather take opportunities to make the drivers simpler. - Dave
