Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:13:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200908141913.56884.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200908141905.32766.rjw@sisk.pl>

On Friday 14 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 14 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:22:44AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
...
> > > Though perhaps the device level runtime_idle shouldn't be void - that 
> > > way the bus can ask the driver whether its suspend conditions have been 
> > > satisfied? Right now there doesn't seem to be any way for the bus to ask 
> > > that.
> > 
> > If you want to get the device-level runtime_idle involved, you can make
> > _it_ responsible for scheduling the suspend.  Then the bus-level code
> > simply has to check whether everything is okay at the bus level, and if
> > it is, call the device-level routine.
> > 
> > However changing the return type wouldn't hurt anything, and it would 
> > allow the pm_schedule_suspend call to be centralized in the bus code.  
> > You could ask Rafael about it, or just send him a patch.
> 
> Well, I'm not against that, but what should pm_runtime_idle() do with the
> result returned by it?  Just pass it to the caller?

Hm, perhaps its better to ignore it, though.

Rafael