On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Or maybe you think that when pm_runtime_put_sync detects the > > > usage_count has decremented to 0 and the device is irq-safe, it should > > > call rpm_suspend directly instead of calling rpm_idle? > > > > That also would work for me, actually. > > Okay, then consider this proposal. I'll introduce a new > pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() function which decrements the usage_count > and calls rpm_suspend directly if the count drops to 0. Then interrupt > handlers could use this function in place of pm_runtime_put_sync(), > provided the device was irq-safe. > > Not only that, pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() would be available for > anyone to use. It must be reasonably common for runtime_idle routines > to do nothing but call pm_runtime_suspend(). The new API call would > save a little overhead. Fine by me. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
