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: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200906130106.58464.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from netrider.rowland.org ([192.131.102.5]:45598 "HELO netrider.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754434AbZFMSIH (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:08:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200906130106.58464.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 Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > So, the conclusion seems to be that we should break the recurrence > at the point we find an already active device or a device with no parent and > let the driver(s) handle the more complicated cases. Is this correct? That's right. > BTW, is __device_release_driver() the right place for blocking the run-time PM > temporarily during remove? It is. And for submitting a delayed autosuspend request afterward; we may as well try to suspend devices that don't have drivers. Alan Stern