On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Below is the current version of my "run-time PM for I/O devices" patch. > > > > > > I've done my best to address the comments received during the recent > > > discussions, but at the same time I've tried to make the patch only contain > > > the most essential things. For this reason, for example, the sysfs interface > > > is not there and it's going to be added in a separate patch. > > > > > > Please let me know if you want me to change anything in this patch or to add > > > anything new to it. [Magnus, I remember you wanted something like > > > ->runtime_wakeup() along with ->runtime_idle(), but I'm not sure it's really > > > necessary. Please let me know if you have any particular usage scenario for > > > it.] > > Appended is an update of the patch addressing the today's comments from Magnus. This is really looking very good. I'll do a more detailed review later. (In particular, I have not checked the details of the rather intricate state machine transitions.) For now, a couple of things struck my eye: Shouldn't the calls to complete() really be complete_all()? There might be more than one thread waiting for a suspend or resume callback to finish. Since pm_runtime_resume() takes care of powering up the parent, there's no need for pm_request_resume() to worry about it also. The documentation should mention that the runtime_suspend method is supposed to enable remote wakeup if it as available and if device_may_wakeup(dev) is true. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
