On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > ->runtime_idle() is still only called for the device's bus type, because > > > > > otherwise it will be hard to determine the right ordering of the bus type, > > > > > device type and device class callbacks. > > > > > > > > Shouldn't it be the same as runtime_suspend and runtime_resume? > > > > > > Well, the ordering is different in each of them ... > > > > Why not just copy the order used by device_suspend(): class, then type, > > then bus? > > Do you mean in _idle? Idle is very similar to suspend. They should use the same order. I guess there's one extra thing to look out for: If one of the idle callbacks does pm_runtime_suspend() then there's no point invoking the later callbacks. > > Actually, I don't know of any cases where the order matters. But there > > may be some, for system suspend. Runtime suspend is new enough that > > people will adapt. > > Still, calling them in the reverse order in resume is kind of logical ... Yes. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
