On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Mahalingam, Nithish wrote: > I had one more question - > > +The ->runtime_suspend() callback is executed by the PM core for the bus type, > +device type and device class of the device being suspended. The bus type, > +device type and device class callbacks are then _entirely_ _responsible_ for > +handling the device as appropriate, which may, but need not include executing > +the device driver's own ->runtime_suspend() callback (from the PM core's point > +of view it is not necessary to implement a ->runtime_suspend() callback in a > +device driver as long as the bus type, device type and device class > +->runtime_suspend() know what to do to handle the device). > > Any specific reason why from PM core we should not call the device driver's > ->runtime_suspend() or ->runtime_resume()? I know one of either the bus/ > class/type should implement device suspend but what if (worst case) none of > them are doing it? Is it OK in that case (alone) to call device driver's > runtime PM directly (if it is implemented) from the runtime PM core? The system PM driver_suspend() and driver_resume() routines don't do that. For consistency, the runtime PM routines should behave the same way. Alan Stern P.S.: Rafael, I just realized that your documentation changes could be reduced considerably. All you have to do is explain once how whenever a method call occurs, the PM core will search for a callback pointer in the following locations: ... Then in all those places where you list all the callback possibilities, just say "the callback routine" or something like that. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
