Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.205]:44659 "EHLO na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752564Ab1A0Xtn (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:43 -0500 From: Kevin Hilman To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alan Stern , "Ohad Ben-Cohen" , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Ido Yariv Subject: Re: [linux-pm] subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions References: <87tyguje7j.fsf@ti.com> <201101280021.14344.rjw@sisk.pl> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:49:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: <201101280021.14344.rjw@sisk.pl> (Rafael J. Wysocki's message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:21:14 +0100") Message-ID: <87lj25kium.fsf@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: [...] >> >> So, to summarize, as long as folks are OK with drivers directly calling >> the subsystem runtime PM callbacks, I'll go this route. > > This is perfectly fine as long as you ensure that they won't be called > concurrently through the runtime PM framework. Yes, as long as they're only used in the suspend/resume (or _noirq versions) this is guaranteed since the DPM core is already preventing runtime PM transitions during suspend/resume. Kevin