From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PM / Domains: Expect PM domains being powered at initialization Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:21:43 -0700 Message-ID: <7h61g5ynns.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <1412081033-8136-1-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <1412081033-8136-4-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.19.201]:40265 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751832AbaI3SVp (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:21:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1412081033-8136-4-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> (Ulf Hansson's message of "Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:43:52 +0200") Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Geert Uytterhoeven , Tomasz Figa , Philipp Zabel , Russell King , Mark Brown , Wolfram Sang , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Dmitry Torokhov , Jack Dai , Jinkun Hong Ulf Hansson writes: > At ->probe() it's common practice for drivers/subsystems to bring their > devices to full power and without depending on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. If they're not using pm_runtime to bring the device to full power, shouldn't these drivers be using pm_runtime_set_active()? (or maybe pm_runtime_force_resume()?) Wouldn't using those force the genpd to stay powered on? Kevin