On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote: > While I like the idea of the symmetry of having both _get_sync() and > _put_sync() callable from an interrupt handler, I can't currently think > of a situation where we would need to _put_sync() in the ISR. A > standard _put() should suffice for all cases I can imagine. It's wasteful to go through the context switch to the workqueue process if you don't need to. And it's time consuming; you want to power down the device as soon as possible once the interrupt handler is finished, right? What do you think of the pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() proposal? Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
