On Thursday 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday 26 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > At this point, yes. At least drivers should leave the devices active and > > > > let the core power take care of them. > > > > > > What if the driver is unbound while the device is suspended? It seems > > > pretty awkward. The release method would have to do: > > > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); > > > pm_runtime_disable(dev); > > > pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev); > > > pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev); > > > > That's correct, but as I said I don't think it's safe to do anything else in > > general at this point (please remember that it must cooperate with system > > suspend/resume). > > > > This still is a work in progress, though, so if you have an idea how to improve > > it, I surely won't object. :-) > > I'm just trying to determine what drivers are currently expected to > do. > > So when a device isn't bound, it should be disabled for runtime PM and > in an active state (D0), but its runtime status should be RPM_SUSPENDED > -- the same as the default values when a new device structure is > initialized. Right? Yes. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
