On Thursday, 2 August 2007 16:24, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Perhaps we should create dpm_active right before the suspend, by really > > > > traversing the device tree, when we own all device semaphores and no device > > > > objects can be added/removed? > > > > > > We're doing okay the way things are. Changing the order is more likely > > > to cause new problems than to solve existing ones. > > > > Well, my idea is not to change the order, but to create the list from scratch > > when we need it and not in advance, because creating the list in advance > > causes problems to appear. > > Doing it that way will almost certainly result in a different order > from the one we have now. Yes, but wouldn't that order be more accurate? > And it won't help the EHCI issue, because there the question is which of > several siblings should come last. Why not? If the device can indicate something like "place me after that one" to the code creating the list, we can handle that too. > > In fact, if the system is never suspended, the list that we create is not even > > useful for anything. > > True. But it doesn't take up much space, especially if PM isn't > configured. And creating the list doesn't take much time. Sure. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
