On Friday 29 January 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Friday 29 January 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > - * If @check_resume is set and there's a resume request pending when
> > > > > > - * __pm_runtime_disable() is called and power.disable_depth is zero, the
> > > > > > - * function will wake up the device before disabling its run-time PM.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > -void __pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev, bool check_resume)
> > > > > > +void pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev)
> > > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > Why did you decide to remove the check_resume argument? That decision
> > > > > should be explained in the patch description.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I thought the "which is not necessary any more" would be a sufficient
> > > > explanation ...
> > >
> > > But why is it not necessary now,
> >
> > Well, all of the existing callers use only one value of it, which is 'false'
> > (perhaps I should write that in the changelog).
>
> I don't understand. Isn't the existing version of pm_runtime_disable()
> a caller which sets check_resume to 'true'? There certainly are places
> that call pm_runtime_disable().
Sorry, you're absolutely right, so the patch is wrong.
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
