On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday 14 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday 14 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:22:44AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > ... > > > > Though perhaps the device level runtime_idle shouldn't be void - that > > > > way the bus can ask the driver whether its suspend conditions have been > > > > satisfied? Right now there doesn't seem to be any way for the bus to ask > > > > that. > > > > > > If you want to get the device-level runtime_idle involved, you can make > > > _it_ responsible for scheduling the suspend. Then the bus-level code > > > simply has to check whether everything is okay at the bus level, and if > > > it is, call the device-level routine. > > > > > > However changing the return type wouldn't hurt anything, and it would > > > allow the pm_schedule_suspend call to be centralized in the bus code. > > > You could ask Rafael about it, or just send him a patch. > > > > Well, I'm not against that, but what should pm_runtime_idle() do with the > > result returned by it? Just pass it to the caller? > > Hm, perhaps its better to ignore it, though. That's what I was going to say. The return value is intended for use by bus-level code when calling a driver-level routine. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
