Re: System sleep vs. runtime PM

Alan Stern
2009-12-12T19:22:53Z

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > Also, when the system resume is finished, drivers need a chance to
> > runtime-suspend again. Hence the pm_runtime_put_noidle() call in
> > dpm_complete() should be changed to pm_runtime_put_sync().
>
> OK
>
> Are you going to send a patch or do you want me to prepare one?

We're talking about mostly documentation changes, right? I can write
them.

But the code changes will present a small problem. I'll need them for
the USB development. Will it be okay to ask Greg KH to put them in his
tree after you have accepted them into yours? That will avoid
cross-subsystem build errors. (We just got through one of them
involving David Miller and I'd rather avoid any more.)

There's one other thing (should have brought it up earlier): Do you
mind having the runtime-PM callbacks invoke the bus type or the bus
class methods instead of the bus methods, if they are defined? That
is, do them in the same way the system-PM callbacks work. The USB code
will definitely want different methods for the different types. In
fact, I've already written a version that tests the bus type within the
callback routines.

Alan Stern