On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > If we choose this approach, then yes, we should provide a suitable API, > > > but > > > I'm still thinking it would be simpler to move the pm_runtime_put_sync() > > > before driver_sysfs_remove() and make the rule as I said previously. :-) > > > > The problem is synchronization. At what point is the driver supposed > > to stop queuing runtime PM requests? It would have to be sometime > > before the pm_runtime_barrier() call. How is the driver supposed to > > know when that point is reached? The remove routine isn't called until > > later. > > Executing the driver's callback is not an ideal solution either, because > it simply may be insufficient (it may be necessary to execute the power > domain and/or subsystem callbacks, pretty much what rpm_suspend() does, > but without taking the usage counter into consideration).
That's why I suggested a new API. It could do the right callbacks. > Moreover, if we want the driver's ->remove() to do the cleanup anyway, > there's not much point in doing any cleanup before in the core. Also, > there's a little problem that the bus ->remove() is called before the > driver's ->remove(), so it may not be entirely possible to power down > the device when the driver's ->remove() is called already. Actually, the bus->remove() callback (if there is one) is responsible for invoking the driver's callback. The subsystem should be smart enough to handle runtime PM requests while the driver's remove callback is running. > I think the current code is better than any of the alternatives considered > so far. Then you think Guennadi should leave his patch as it is, including the "reversed" put/get? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
