From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200906112143.57361.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:50718 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754806AbZFLOZd (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:25:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200906112143.57361.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Oliver Neukum , Linux-pm mailing list , ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > It might also be nice to make sure that the driver core autoresumes a > > > > device before probing it and autosuspends a device (after some > > > > reasonable delay) after unbinding its driver. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > This is another case where a usage counter comes in handy. The driver > > core resumes the device and increments the counter -- thus preventing > > any unwanted autosuspends -- before making the probe and remove calls. > > I like this idea. > > BTW, where exactly the counter should be increased in that case? > > I thought of driver_probe_device(), but is it sufficient? Or is there a better > place? That's okay. Or you could put it in really_probe(). Either one. Alan Stern