[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4732005.Un0exgRK6O@linux-lqwf.site>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:01:15 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@....com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Lin Ming <minggr@...il.com>,
Jeff Wu <jeff.wu@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] scsi: pm: use autosuspend if device supports it
On Thursday 26 July 2012 20:43:32 Aaron Lu wrote:
> > What is the purpose of this approach?
>
> The purpose is to let scsi layer driver(sd, sr, etc.) use the same pm
> api(scsi_autopm_put_device) to put the device to runtime suspended
> state.
> When the device is ready to be suspended, if it does not make use of
> autosuspend, call pm_runtime_put_sync for it; if it makes use of
> autosuspend, call the autosuspend runtime pm apis for it.
>
> > You need a very good reason to have an API do two different things
> > based on this.
>
> If you see the above reason not good, I'll prepare an updated version
> to create a new api to cover the autosuspend case, something like:
> void scsi_autopm_put_device_autosuspend(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> {
> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&sdev->sdev_gendev);
> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&sdev->sdev_gendev);
> }
> Does this look right?
Much better :-)
Regards
Oliver
--
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