On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > We may want to do the direct_complete_default thing in a different way. > > For example, the PM core could automatically set the direct_complete > > flag if a device has _none_ of the system suspend callbacks (i.e., no > > prepare, suspend, suspend_late, suspend_noirq, resume_noirq, > > resume_early, resume, or complete). Although it would be a little > > awkward to check this, it would be safer than inheriting > > direct_complete_default from the parent and it ought to solve Tomeu's > > problem just as well. > > Yeah, I think this is an improvement. Will give it a try.
Sounds good. > > Here's a proposed patch to illustrate what I have in mind. Since it > > removes the only usage of pm_runtime_suspended_if_enabled(), it also > > removes the definition of that function. > > Will this patch be picked up as-is or should I add it to my series > with a proper changelog? You can add it to your series with my S-O-B: Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <[email protected]> Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
