[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0906121023010.2915-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re:
[RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > It might also be nice to make sure that the driver core autoresumes a
> > > > device before probing it and autosuspends a device (after some
> > > > reasonable delay) after unbinding its driver.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> >
> > This is another case where a usage counter comes in handy. The driver
> > core resumes the device and increments the counter -- thus preventing
> > any unwanted autosuspends -- before making the probe and remove calls.
>
> I like this idea.
>
> BTW, where exactly the counter should be increased in that case?
>
> I thought of driver_probe_device(), but is it sufficient? Or is there a better
> place?
That's okay. Or you could put it in really_probe(). Either one.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists