Re: [RFC] Add "rpm_not_supported" flag

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 04:03:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Here's a brief summary of the story behind this patch...
> > > 
> > > At one point, I suggested to Dan that instead of doing something
> > > special for these devices, we could simply have the runtime_suspend()
> > > routine always return -EBUSY.  He didn't like that idea because then
> > > the user would see the device was never powering down but would have no
> > > idea why.  The rpm_not_supported flag provides this information to the
> > > user by causing the power/runtime_status attribute to say "not
> > > supported".  (Although to be entirely fair, we could just put a message
> > > in the kernel log during probe if the hardware doesn't support runtime
> > > suspend.)
> > > 
> > > Instead, Dan introduced a messy PM QoS mechanism in commit
> > > e3d105055525.  I didn't like that approach, but Greg merged it before I
> > > objected.
> > 
> > That really looks a bit like a hack to me to be honest.
> > 
> > Greg, what's your plan toward this?
> 
> If I need to revert something that you all find was wrong, I'll be glad
> to do so, sorry for merging something too early.

Alan, what do you think?

I think we're still unsure if the approach taken by that commit is correct,
but then I suppose we don't need to revert it at this point and we can fix
it later.  Is that correct, or would fixing it be difficult for some reason?

Rafael