[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2019845.JZoN7saqRp@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:57:46 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / runtime: Drop children check from __pm_runtime_set_status()
On Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:22:41 AM CET Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 01:27:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> > trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
> > really make sense, because in fact it is not invalid to set the
> > status of a device with runtime PM disabled to "suspended" in any
> > case. It is invalid to enable runtime PM for a device with its
> > status set to "suspended" while its child_count reference counter
> > is nonzero, but the check in __pm_runtime_set_status() doesn't
> > really cover that situation.
> >
> > For this reason, drop the children check from __pm_runtime_set_status()
> > and add a check against child_count reference counters of "suspended"
> > devices to pm_runtime_enable().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Looks good to me, but you should also fix
> Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt which was updated to reflect the
> constraint that is now being reverted.
Thanks for pointing that out.
> Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Thanks!
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists