Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PM: runtime: Add Example Driver Patterns section

[Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 2:34 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 08:05:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 7:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
> > <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 10:55 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 10:11:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 10:15 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 09:07:54PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 5:51 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> >
> > [cut]
>
> [ Thanks for the earlier clarification about PM domain. It helps me
>   understand where you're coming from. ]
>
> > > > I kinda think the point of most of this power domain architecture is
> > > > that a typical driver just doesn't have to worry about it at all (in
> > > > probe(), and if you use runtime PM properly), so I'd prefer not
> > > > mentioning it in the Basic example. But sure.
> > >
> > > Well, your basic example needs to be put in a certain context because
> > > it may not be generally applicable everywhere.
> > >
> > > I think that you should make it clear what the driver's expectations
> > > regarding the physical state of the device at the probe time are and
> > > the general rule is that it is better to leave the device in the same
> > > state in which it is expected to be found next time.
>
> Ack, will do to the best of my ability.

So please send a v5 of this one when you are ready.

Thanks!