On Friday, June 17, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Then you suggest: > > > > > > Call pm_runtime_disable after .suspend; > > > > > > Call pm_runtime_get_noresume and pm_runtime_enable before > > > .resume; > > > > > > Call pm_runtime_put_sync after .complete. > > > > > > Right? > > > > Yes, that would be resonable IMO. > > This turns out to be harder than it looks. If an error occurs, we may > run the complete callback for devices that never were suspended or > resumed and hence never had their usage_count incremented. How can we > tell that we need to skip the pm_runtime_put_sync for these devices? > > Would it be okay to call pm_runtime_put_sync immediately after the > resume callback instead of after complete? Yes, it would. That said we may be better off by simply reverting commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 (PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend). Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
