On Monday, July 11, 2011, Hilman, Kevin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday, July 11, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> >> > >> >> However, based on the pm_runtime_set_active() problem you mentioned > >> >> above, I'm not sure this will help either, since what the PM domain's > >> >> noirq callback will want to do will be based on the actual device > >> >> hardware state, not on the PM core's view of the device state. > >> > > >> > Yes. For devices whose runtime PM is never enabled, this is quite clear > >> > (we must assume they are operational). For devices whose runtime PM is > >> > temporarily disabled and the reenabled, it's not that clear, but at > >> > least for the system suspend case we may require drivers not to use > >> > pm_runtime_set_active/suspended() in their callbacks, so that we may > >> > assume that the status hasn't changed between .suspend() and .resume(). > >> > > >> > So, I think your approach (to check power.runtime_status) is correct in this > >> > respect. > >> > >> OK, I'll just directly check power.runtime_status in the noirq methods, > >> since at that point I always know that disable_depth > 0. > > > > That's what I wanted to say. :-) The only problem with that is if > > CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is unset, power.runtime_status is not present, so I think > > we'll need a static inline to work around that. > > > > OK, I can prepare a patch for a static inline for > pm_runtime_status_suspended(), unless you have one already in > progress. No, I don't, please send me one if you can. :-) Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
