Hi Rafail
[Runtime PM v11]
Thanks for your work on this. The code is getting better and better.
I've just finished posting a bunch of patches related to v11 of your
Runtime PM patch. Basically everything seems fine except a few minor
details and the code below: =)
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/dd.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/dd.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/dd.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/kthread.h>
> #include <linux/wait.h>
> #include <linux/async.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>
> #include "base.h"
> #include "power/power.h"
> @@ -202,7 +203,9 @@ int driver_probe_device(struct device_dr
> pr_debug("bus: '%s': %s: matched device %s with driver %s\n",
> drv->bus->name, __func__, dev_name(dev), drv->name);
>
> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> ret = really_probe(dev, drv);
> + pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
>
> return ret;
> }
This creates problems when drivers want to performing runtime resume
from within probe(). For more details please have a look at "[PATCH
04/04] video: Runtime PM hack for SuperH LCDC driver".
Cheers,
/ magnus
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
