From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ohad Ben-Cohen Subject: Re: runtime PM usage_count during driver_probe_device()? Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:57:40 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87k4c3dktm.fsf@ti.com> <87vcvmaml6.fsf@ti.com> <201107010233.12377.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201107010233.12377.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > In theory it is possible that a subsystem (e.g. bus type) will enable > runtime PM for devices without drivers and will (for example) put them > into low power states until the drivers are loaded. =A0Then, it makes > sense for the core to prevent such transitions from racing with .probe(). > > I'm not sure if this happens in practice, though, Yeah, this is exactly what the SDIO subsystem is doing.