[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100205062718.GA1384@ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:27:19 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Runtime: Add sysfs switch for disabling
device run-time PM (rev. 2)
> > > + * The default for all devices is "auto", which means that devices may be
> > > + * subject to automatic power management, depending on their drivers.
> >
> > Is it wise to specify 'auto' default value for devices without runtime
> > pm?
>
> Yes, it is. It means the user space doesn't care whether or not the device is
> power managed at run-time.
Well, defaulting to 'on' for drivers when runtime pm is experimental
seems logical. and there will be such drivers...
> > > + len = cp - buf;
> > > + if (len == sizeof ctrl_auto - 1 && strncmp(buf, ctrl_auto, len) == 0)
> > > + pm_runtime_allow(dev);
> >
> > parenthesis after sizeof?
>
> This notation is used throughout this file too.
...but is inconsistent with rest of kernel.
> > Do I read it correctly that all of
> >
> > "auto"
> > "auto\n"
> > "auto\non\nIm confused"
> >
> > will switch to auto?
>
> Perhaps it would, but what exactly is the problem with that?
That apps will start depending on such broken behaviour?
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-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