On Wednesday, December 15, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: PM / Runtime: Fix pm_runtime_suspended()
> >
> > pm_runtime_suspended() shouldn't return true if the runtime PM of the
> > given device is disabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > @@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ static inline void device_set_run_wake(s
> >
> > static inline bool pm_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > - return dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDED;
> > + return dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDED
> > + && !dev->power.disable_depth;
> > }
>
> You need to update the documentation entry for pm_runtime_suspended as
> well.
Yes, I also need to rework the changelog to explain what exactly the problem is.
> I think this is okay. If a driver or subsystem uses
> pm_runtime_suspended() then it must be runtime-PM-aware, so it wouldn't
> leave a device disabled for runtime PM.
>
> So in theory the only place this would matter is if the function is
> called in a generic setting, and AFAICT the only place that happens is
> in generic_ops.c, where the change is correct.
Indeed.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
