Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758530AbZFMSIT (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:08:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755709AbZFMSII (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:08:08 -0400 Received: from netrider.rowland.org ([192.131.102.5]:40705 "HELO netrider.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754683AbZFMSIH (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:08:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:08:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@netrider.rowland.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Oliver Neukum , Linux-pm mailing list , ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML Subject: Re: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code) In-Reply-To: <200906130106.58464.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 784 Lines: 21 On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > So, the conclusion seems to be that we should break the recurrence > at the point we find an already active device or a device with no parent and > let the driver(s) handle the more complicated cases. Is this correct? That's right. > BTW, is __device_release_driver() the right place for blocking the run-time PM > temporarily during remove? It is. And for submitting a delayed autosuspend request afterward; we may as well try to suspend devices that don't have drivers. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/