From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1752832AbZBRIwS@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752832AbZBRIwS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:52:18 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751256AbZBRIwH
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:52:07 -0500
Received: from smtp-out002.kontent.com ([81.88.40.216]:33455 "EHLO
	smtp-out002.kontent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751066AbZBRIwG convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:52:06 -0500
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
Organization: Novell
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:53:48 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Arve =?iso-8859-1?q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= <arve@android.com>,
       Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
       Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
       Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>,
       Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
       mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
       "Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@ti.com>, Uli Luckas <u.luckas@road.de>,
       Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@nokia.com>,
       Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0902162144010.24097-100000@netrider.rowland.org> <200902180026.55533.rjw@sisk.pl>
In-Reply-To: <200902180026.55533.rjw@sisk.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200902180953.51171.oliver@neukum.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Am Wednesday 18 February 2009 00:26:53 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > Another possibility is to set up independent runtime PM for the
> > transport and the device.  This means allowing the possibility that the
> > transport is suspended while its child (the device) is not.  This is a
> > little simpler (there's only one idle-timeout per device, since the
> > link is treated as an independent device), but it violates the
> > principle of never suspending a parent while there is an active child.
> 
> Well, I think the first approach would be better.

I am afraid it wouldn't be. How do you deal with shared transports?

	Regards
		Oliver