Re: Nested suspends; messages vs. states

David Brownell
2005-03-23T19:06:02Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 585 bytes --]

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