Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily | Date | Thu, 15 May 2014 14:55:49 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 02:06:59 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: > > Do we want to allow ->prepare() to return > 0 if the device isn't > > runtime suspended? If we do then non-suspended devices may be a common > > case. We should then avoid the extra overhead of disable + enable. > > So I would write: > > > > if (dev->power.direct_complete) { > > if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) { > > pm_runtime_disable(dev); > > if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1 > > && pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) > > goto Complete; > > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > } > > dev->power.direct_complete = false; > > } > > > > I am wondering whether the above pm_runtime_disable|enable actually > belongs better in driver/subsystem in favour of the PM core?
No, it doesn't.
> Doesn't the driver/subsystem anyway needs to be on top of what goes > on? Typically, while runtime PM has been disabled, that might affect > it's wakeup handling? Or this case are already handled due to other > circumstances?
Yes, that's the case.
Thanks!
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |