[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0906231043290.3209-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch update 3] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM
of I/O devices
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > And of course, synchronous pm_runtime_resume should always increment the
> > counter.
>
> Sure.
Now that I've thought about it some more, I decided that we might want
to be more flexible. Without subjecting you to the entire line of
reasoning, let's just say that I'm starting to wonder whether it's such
a good idea to tie the counter increments to the PM core runtime resume
calls at all.
Maybe it would be better (easier to use, less constraining) to require
the runtime_resume callback to do its own pm_runtime_get. That way the
driver would be entirely responsible for managing the usage counter;
the PM core wouldn't be involved. pm_runtime_get would simply
increment the counter, so it could be used even in interrupt context.
At the moment, I don't see any need for it to queue an autoresume
request if the device happens to be suspended.
Something like this was probably your intention all along. :-)
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