Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, July 03, 2015 11:11:19 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> 
> > >> Yeah, that would remove the need for messing with the runtime PM
> > >> enable status of descendant devices, but I wonder why Rafael went that
> > >> way initially.
> > >
> > > I forget the details.  Probably it was just to be safe.  We probably
> > > thought that if a device was disabled for runtime PM then its runtime
> > > PM status might not be accurate.  But if direct_complete is set then it
> > > may be reasonable to assume that the runtime PM status _is_ accurate.
> > 
> > Cool.
> 
> > > Rafael and I briefly discussed ignore_children while the original
> > > direct_complete patch was being designed.  We didn't come to any
> > > definite conclusion and decided to forget about it for the time being.
> > > Maybe now would be a good time to reconsider it.
> > 
> > I would prefer to have ignore_children ignore whether the children of
> > a device were able to do direct_complete, rather than having a
> > direct_complete_default flag (plus not requiring that all its
> > descendants have runtime PM enabled).
> 
> Okay, but remember that sometimes these "virtual" devices will exist 
> beneath a device that needs to have ignore_children off.  So this won't 
> be a complete solution to your problem.
> 
> Let's see what Rafael thinks about these two issues.  It seems to me
> that the hardest part is dealing with drivers/subsystems that have no
> runtime PM support.  In such cases, we have to be very careful not to
> use direct_complete unless we know that the device does no power 
> management at all.

Precisely.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/