On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Or maybe you think that when pm_runtime_put_sync detects the
usage_count has decremented to 0 and the device is irq-safe, it should
call rpm_suspend directly instead of calling rpm_idle?
That also would work for me, actually.
Okay, then
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote:
While I like the idea of the symmetry of having both _get_sync() and
_put_sync() callable from an interrupt handler, I can't currently think
of a situation where we would need to _put_sync() in the ISR. A
standard _put() should suffice for all cases I
Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu writes:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote:
While I like the idea of the symmetry of having both _get_sync() and
_put_sync() callable from an interrupt handler, I can't currently think
of a situation where we would need to _put_sync() in the ISR. A
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Or maybe you think that when pm_runtime_put_sync detects the
usage_count has decremented to 0 and the device is irq-safe, it should
call rpm_suspend directly instead of calling rpm_idle?
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Moreover, I'm not sure if we need an IRQ safe version of _idle. Why
do
we need it, exactly?
Because pm_runtime_put_sync() calls rpm_idle(). If there were no
irq-safe version
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl writes:
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Moreover, I'm not sure if we need an IRQ safe version of _idle. Why
do
we need it, exactly?
Because pm_runtime_put_sync() calls
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I didn't like this change before and I still don't like it. Quite
frankly, I'm
not sure I can convince Linus to pull it. :-)
Why don't we simply execute the callback under the spinlock in the
IRQ safe case?
Because it
On Monday, November 22, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I didn't like this change before and I still don't like it. Quite
frankly, I'm
not sure I can convince Linus to pull it. :-)
Why don't we simply execute the callback under the
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Moreover, I'm not sure if we need an IRQ safe version of _idle. Why do
we need it, exactly?
Because pm_runtime_put_sync() calls rpm_idle(). If there were no
irq-safe version of rpm_idle() then drivers wouldn't be able to call
On Saturday, November 20, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
This patch (as1431b) makes the synchronous runtime-PM interface
suitable for use in interrupt handlers. Subsystems can call the new
On Friday, November 19, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
This patch (as1431b) makes the synchronous runtime-PM interface
suitable for use in interrupt handlers. Subsystems can call the new
pm_runtime_irq_safe() function to tell the PM core that a device's
runtime-PM callbacks should be invoked with
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
This patch (as1431b) makes the synchronous runtime-PM interface
suitable for use in interrupt handlers. Subsystems can call the new
pm_runtime_irq_safe() function to tell the PM core that a
12 matches
Mail list logo
