From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935260AbdKPOAX (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:00:23 -0500 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:57462 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964995AbdKPN6B (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:58:01 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Johan Hovold Cc: Linux PM , LKML , Ulf Hansson , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Stern Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / runtime: Drop children check from __pm_runtime_set_status() Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:57:46 +0100 Message-ID: <2019845.JZoN7saqRp@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20171116092241.GI11226@localhost> References: <1713438.irjm9MTSvo@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171116092241.GI11226@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:22:41 AM CET Johan Hovold wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 01:27:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when > > trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't > > really make sense, because in fact it is not invalid to set the > > status of a device with runtime PM disabled to "suspended" in any > > case. It is invalid to enable runtime PM for a device with its > > status set to "suspended" while its child_count reference counter > > is nonzero, but the check in __pm_runtime_set_status() doesn't > > really cover that situation. > > > > For this reason, drop the children check from __pm_runtime_set_status() > > and add a check against child_count reference counters of "suspended" > > devices to pm_runtime_enable(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Looks good to me, but you should also fix > Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt which was updated to reflect the > constraint that is now being reverted. Thanks for pointing that out. > Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold Thanks! Rafael