From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [RFC] Add "rpm_not_supported" flag Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:03:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20140716230345.GA3220@kroah.com> References: <1908592.0t6juNfLFj@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:55343 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752261AbaGPXDq (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:03:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1908592.0t6juNfLFj@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alan Stern , Allen Yu , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , Dan Williams , Linux-pm mailing list , Kernel development list On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > Here's a brief summary of the story behind this patch... > > > > At one point, I suggested to Dan that instead of doing something > > special for these devices, we could simply have the runtime_suspend() > > routine always return -EBUSY. He didn't like that idea because then > > the user would see the device was never powering down but would have no > > idea why. The rpm_not_supported flag provides this information to the > > user by causing the power/runtime_status attribute to say "not > > supported". (Although to be entirely fair, we could just put a message > > in the kernel log during probe if the hardware doesn't support runtime > > suspend.) > > > > Instead, Dan introduced a messy PM QoS mechanism in commit > > e3d105055525. I didn't like that approach, but Greg merged it before I > > objected. > > That really looks a bit like a hack to me to be honest. > > Greg, what's your plan toward this? If I need to revert something that you all find was wrong, I'll be glad to do so, sorry for merging something too early. thanks, greg k-h