On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Since pm_runtime_resume() takes care of powering up the parent, there's > > no need for pm_request_resume() to worry about it also. > > But still it won't hurt to do it IMO, because the parents are then going to be > resumed before our pm_runtime_resume() is called. It's extra code that isn't needed. In essence, you are trading code space for a shorter runtime stack. > > 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. > > Well, I thought that was obvious. :-) Sometimes it doesn't hurt to state the obvious! :-) Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
