On Thursday, September 02, 2010, Colin Cross wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Colin Cross wrote: > > > >> >> I think it would be better to change device_pm_init() and add a > >> >> complete_all(). > >> > > >> > I agree. > >> That would work, and was my first solution, but it increases the > >> reliance on the completion variable being left completed between state > >> transitions, which is undocumented and unnecessary. It seems more > >> straightforward to me to only wait on the parent if the parent is > >> suspended. > > > > How about calling complete_all() from within dpm_prepare() as well? > > Then it will get initialized properly at the beginning of every sleep > > transition. > That would work, but I still don't see why it's better. With either > of your changes, the power.completion variable is storing state, and > not just used for notification. However, the exact meaning of that > state is unclear, especially during the transition from an aborted > suspend to resume, and the state is duplicating power.status. Setting > it to complete in dpm_prepare is especially confusing, because at that > point nothing is completed, it hasn't even been started. It just sets the initial value. But I agree it would be cleaner to do that during the initialization. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
