On 30 September 2015 at 15:05, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 01:33:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 30 September 2015 at 11:58, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com> >> wrote: >> > @@ -1369,6 +1372,8 @@ int pm_genpd_remove_device(struct generic_pm_domain >> > *genpd, >> > >> > genpd_free_dev_data(dev, gpd_data); >> > >> > + device_check_pm_callbacks(dev); >> > + >> > return 0; >> >> I can't tell whether this is an interesting feature to use for devices >> that gets attached to the ACPI PM domain. Although, you currently >> doesn't deal with that case, and too me I think this looks a bit >> weird/unsymmetrical. > > Good point. > > It needs to be done in every situation where a PM domain is or can be used. > > I guess we might require all PM domains to be attached to devices after > a successful probe at the latest (no PM domains should be attached/detached > after probe succeeds IOW), in which case it should be sufficient to do the > device_check_pm_callbacks() thing each time after probe successds. > > Thoughts?
Sound good to me. How were you thinking of doing that? Manually checking that that's currently the case and adding a WARN() if a pm_domain is attached to a device that has been probed already? Thanks, Tomeu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
