Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Add "rpm_not_supported" flag | Date | Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:27:45 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 04:03:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > > Here's a brief summary of the story behind this patch... > > > > > > At one point, I suggested to Dan that instead of doing something > > > special for these devices, we could simply have the runtime_suspend() > > > routine always return -EBUSY. He didn't like that idea because then > > > the user would see the device was never powering down but would have no > > > idea why. The rpm_not_supported flag provides this information to the > > > user by causing the power/runtime_status attribute to say "not > > > supported". (Although to be entirely fair, we could just put a message > > > in the kernel log during probe if the hardware doesn't support runtime > > > suspend.) > > > > > > Instead, Dan introduced a messy PM QoS mechanism in commit > > > e3d105055525. I didn't like that approach, but Greg merged it before I > > > objected. > > > > That really looks a bit like a hack to me to be honest. > > > > Greg, what's your plan toward this? > > If I need to revert something that you all find was wrong, I'll be glad > to do so, sorry for merging something too early.
Alan, what do you think?
I think we're still unsure if the approach taken by that commit is correct, but then I suppose we don't need to revert it at this point and we can fix it later. Is that correct, or would fixing it be difficult for some reason?
Rafael
| |