[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200908141913.56884.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:13:56 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management
On Friday 14 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 14 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:22:44AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
...
> > > Though perhaps the device level runtime_idle shouldn't be void - that
> > > way the bus can ask the driver whether its suspend conditions have been
> > > satisfied? Right now there doesn't seem to be any way for the bus to ask
> > > that.
> >
> > If you want to get the device-level runtime_idle involved, you can make
> > _it_ responsible for scheduling the suspend. Then the bus-level code
> > simply has to check whether everything is okay at the bus level, and if
> > it is, call the device-level routine.
> >
> > However changing the return type wouldn't hurt anything, and it would
> > allow the pm_schedule_suspend call to be centralized in the bus code.
> > You could ask Rafael about it, or just send him a patch.
>
> Well, I'm not against that, but what should pm_runtime_idle() do with the
> result returned by it? Just pass it to the caller?
Hm, perhaps its better to ignore it, though.
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