On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 06:03:06PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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 > 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. Yes, there'd need to be a bunch of code implementing behaviours that look like what you suggest above and I'm not clear if it'd be worth the hassle of implementing it - like I say, I'm not generally comfortable enough with my understanding in this area to have a strong opinion on the best approach. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
