On Wed 2013-11-20 11:52:05, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 19 November 2013 16:35, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > >> At the moment, system PM is already affecting behaviour of runtime PM > >> since it is preventing runtime suspend during system suspend. > > > > Sure. And that behavior is documented. In any case, it's a bug for > > drivers to depend on runtime suspend for carrying out a system suspend. > > Why do you say that? Because that's the way it is? > A significant amount of drivers should be able to cope with only the > runtime PM callbacks, if only the PM core have respected the drivers > in the way my RFC proposes. So what? It is not as additional callback is huge burden -- code is the same -- and we do want option of disabling runtime PM. Don't make system suspend dependend on runtime PM. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
