On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:10:58PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > I see. It sounds like you're really saying that new devices default to > > the wrong runtime state. If pm_runtime_init() would set new devices to > > RPM_ACTIVE instead of RPM_SUSPENDED then this problem wouldn't arise. > > Children could do whatever they want, and even if the parent's driver > > was totally ignorant of runtime PM, it would work out. > > In this case that's the desired behaviour but I worry that it'd break > some other use case (eg, keeping a parent awake because there was an > unclaimed device sitting around). > > When I've been working with the runtime PM subsystem before I've thought > that it might be nice to have a specific RPM_UNINITIAZLIZED state which > would generally get out of the way. It might be a bit clearer than the > current situation conceptually but I've never felt I had a firm enough > grasp on what was going on to really say, everything always feels more > complicated than I feel it should if I understood it properly. That's an interesting suggestion. In general the PM core can't tell what power state a device is really in when it is first discovered and registered. I don't know if it would really solve your problem, though. What we really need is a better way to tell when a device shouldn't prevent its parent from suspending. Something like: If a device has no driver and no children, it should automatically be put in the RPM_SUSPENDED state. > Thinking about it in the case of I2C we probably also want to mark the > device as ignoring its children when it registers as an I2C controller, > while an I2C controller that does runtime PM will probably figure this > out for itself it would save a bit of effort. That might work, at least for your purposes. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
