On Wed 2013-11-20 11:52:05, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 19 November 2013 16:35, Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> >> At the moment, system PM is already affecting behaviour of runtime PM
> >> since it is preventing runtime suspend during system suspend.
> >
> > Sure. And that behavior is documented. In any case, it's a bug for
> > drivers to depend on runtime suspend for carrying out a system suspend.
>
> Why do you say that?
Because that's the way it is?
> A significant amount of drivers should be able to cope with only the
> runtime PM callbacks, if only the PM core have respected the drivers
> in the way my RFC proposes.
So what? It is not as additional callback is huge burden -- code is
the same -- and we do want option of disabling runtime PM.
Don't make system suspend dependend on runtime PM.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
