On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> ...
> >
> > > > Now, if we agree that only one callback will be called for given device
> > > > (either bus type, or device type, or device class), the code may be simpler
> > > > and there won't be an issue with the ordering in _idle.
> > >
> > > That would be perfectly fine with me.
> >
> > OK
>
> Updated patch is appended, please tell me what you think.
Yes, this is the sort of thing I had in mind. Although it might be
nice to avoid all the repeated code. For example, you might add a
helper routine:
static int invoke_callback(struct device *dev,
int (*func)(struct device *))
{
int retval;
spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
retval = func(dev);
spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
return retval;
}
Alan Stern
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
