On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > For me there's also an issue of style: If you do a synchronous get then it > > looks odd not to do a synchronous put. My feeling has always been that > > the async routines are for use in non-process contexts, where the sync > > routines can't be used. Using them just to return a little more > > quickly is a foreign idea. > > > Another way of looking at it is - I need h/w to be active in order to > proceed so I call get_sync but I don't care if the h/w is not put down > immediately after I am done using it. So the put could be > relaxed/async - At best, we could avoid an unnecessary suspend-resume > cycle which could be expensive power and time wise. At worst, we > return a bit quicker. Or so do I think. If the reason for the choice is to opportunistically delay suspending, there are better ways of doing it: pm_schedule_suspend, pm_runtime_put_autosuspend. 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
