[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200908122318.12145.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:18:12 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-acpi" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"dtor@...l.ru" <dtor@...l.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/4] introduce device async actions mechanism
On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > The one thing I'm not sure of is the pm_runtime_put_noidle calls in
> > > driver_probe_device and __device_release_driver. It seems that we
> > > should always call pm_runtime_put regardless of whether the probe
> > > succeeds or not.
> >
> > Did you mean pm_runtime_put_sync()?
>
> Yes. I haven't used the new code yet so the names don't stick in my
> mind.
>
> > > For example, the USB stack is set up to suspend devices that don't have
> > > a driver (this is handled at the bus subsystem level). But if probing
> > > failed, there wouldn't be any idle callback and so the suspend wouldn't
> > > take place.
> >
> > OK, I'll make this change.
>
> Thanks. Now I just have to figure out the best way to convert USB over
> to the new framework...
:-)
On a second thought, though, would it be a good idea to add
pm_runtime_get_noresume() / pm_runtime_put_sync() around the bus_for_each_drv()
in device_attach()? That would prevent us from resuming-suspending the device
on each failing probe.
Rafael
--
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