On Thursday, November 25, 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 25. November 2010, 16:52:39 schrieb Alan Stern: > > When a device is declared irq-safe in this way, the PM core increments > > the parent's usage count, so the parent will never be runtime > > suspended. This prevents difficult situations in which an irq-safe > > device can't resume because it is forced to wait for its non-irq-safe > > parent. > > Shouldn't you walk further up the tree if the parent itself is irq-safe? > It seems like a waste of power to not suspend a paren, that can be > woken in irq. Then we should walk up the tree if the parent's parent is irq-safe and so on, which would make us spend uncertain amount of time in the ISR (or generally with interrupts off). I think it's safer not to do that. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
