Hi,
On Friday, July 01, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >
> >> OK, so the ->probe() part has been explained and makes sense, but I
> >> would expect ->remove() to be similarily protected (as the documentation
> >> states.) But that is not the case. Is that a bug? If so, patch below
> >> makes the code match the documentation.
> >
> > I suspect it is a bug, but it's hard to be sure. It's so _blatantly_
> > wrong that it looks like it was done deliberately.
>
> heh
I seem to remeber having a problem with the pm_runtime_put_sync() after
drv->remove(dev) ...
So the code in question was introduced by
commit e1866b33b1e89f077b7132daae3dfd9a594e9a1a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Apr 29 00:33:45 2011 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework runtime PM handling during driver removal
with a long changelog explaining the reason why. Which seems to make sense. ;-)
So I'm not sure.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
