On Monday 14 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. Yeah. It was late yesterday when I was preparing the patch and I just didn't think about that. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
