[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26522847.rzj8GpQKux@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 01:39:25 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 01:49:15 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
> > This function makes less cumbersome to enable runtime PM in a device and
> > its descendants.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
>
> I don't see the point of this. In the scenario you have in mind, are
> the device and all its descendants registered by the same
> subsystem/driver? If they are, can't the subsystem/driver code enable
> runtime PM for each of them when they are registered, by adding a
> single call in the right spot?
>
> If they don't all belong to the same subsystem/driver, who is going to
> call your pm_runtime_enable_recursive routine? No single caller will
> have the right to enable runtime PM for all these devices.
Agreed.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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