From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Stern Subject: Re: subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:30:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Ohad Ben-Cohen Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Berg , Linux-pm mailing list , Ido Yariv List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > > Sounds to me like the difference isn't really in the driver, but the > > core PM subsystem. Why does it care when powering off a device whether > > it's during suspend, or during runtime? > > Agree. > > If we can add a dev_pm_info bit, that would allow using runtime PM API > during suspend/resume transitions, the driver will not have to care. > > Rafael what do you think ? Is that totally unacceptable ? Have you forgotten about the "echo on >.../power/control" scenario? Alan Stern