On Saturday 12 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Also, when the system resume is finished, drivers need a chance to > > > runtime-suspend again. Hence the pm_runtime_put_noidle() call in > > > dpm_complete() should be changed to pm_runtime_put_sync(). > > > > OK > > > > Are you going to send a patch or do you want me to prepare one? > > We're talking about mostly documentation changes, right? I can write > them. OK > But the code changes will present a small problem. I'll need them for > the USB development. Will it be okay to ask Greg KH to put them in his > tree after you have accepted them into yours? That will avoid > cross-subsystem build errors. (We just got through one of them > involving David Miller and I'd rather avoid any more.) I'm fine with that. > There's one other thing (should have brought it up earlier): Do you > mind having the runtime-PM callbacks invoke the bus type or the bus I guess you mean device type and device class? > class methods instead of the bus methods, if they are defined? That > is, do them in the same way the system-PM callbacks work. The USB code > will definitely want different methods for the different types. In > fact, I've already written a version that tests the bus type within the > callback routines. That's a good question. I didn't anticipate that, so it's hard to tell right now. I don't really see any fundamental obstacles now, though. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
