[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120925111506.GO31374@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:15:06 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc: "Poddar, Sourav" <sourav.poddar@...com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, khilman@...com, paul@...an.com,
tony@...mide.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
santosh.shilimkar@...com, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
alan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFT/PATCH] serial: omap: prevent resume if device is not
suspended.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:11:14PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> that's most likely, of course. But should we cause a regression to
> beagleboard XM because of that ? Also, if you look into chapter 9 of the
> runtime_pm documentation, starting on line 822 you'll see documentation
> suggests the use of mystruct->is_suspended flag.
BTW, I'll point out a fatal flaw in your justification above.
If you read the entire example, you'll see that the is_suspended flag
is _not_ used to prevent resumes without suspends, but is used as a
flag to control whether the driver processes requests or not. That's
entirely functionally different from using a "is_suspended" flag in
the way you mention above.
Section 5 is quite clear about the requirements at initialization time
for runtime PM, and nothing in section 9 contradicts that, and the
is_suspended flag in that example has nothing to do with any of this.
--
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