From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Nested suspends; messages vs. states Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:06:02 -0800 Message-ID: <200503231106.03160.david-b@pacbell.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============38951388701327083==" In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org To: linux-pm-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============38951388701327083== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 22 March 2005 4:52 pm, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > I think the core should always call ->suspend() for a device, regardless > of whether it thinks it's in a low power state, or inactive. This is > specifically for the reason that a device could be a low-power runtime > state when the system is suspended. I don't quite see a need for this. If the parent/bridge driver knows the device is adequately suspended, why kick it again? It's actually rather annoying -- and error/bug prone! -- to have to code drivers to detect and cope with superfluous suspend calls. - Dave --===============38951388701327083== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============38951388701327083==--