On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The pm_parent member of struct dev_pm_info (defined in include/linux/pm.h) is > only used to check if the device's parent is in the right state while the > device is being suspended or resumed. However, this can be done just as well > with the help of the parent pointer in struct device, so pm_parent can be > removed along with some code that handles it.
> @@ -61,21 +40,26 @@ int device_pm_add(struct device * dev) > kobject_name(&dev->kobj)); > mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx); > list_add_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_active); > - device_pm_set_parent(dev, dev->parent); > - if ((error = dpm_sysfs_add(dev))) > + /* > + * The device's parent must not be released until the device itself is > + * removed from the dpm_active list. > + */ > + get_device(dev->parent); > + error = dpm_sysfs_add(dev); > + if (error) > list_del(&dev->power.entry); > mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx); > return error; > } The error pathway here does an unbalanced get_device on dev->parent. Anyway, I don't think you need to do this get_device at all (or the coresponding put in device_pm_remove). As long as a device is registered it retains a reference to its parent, and unregistration always calls device_pm_remove. The reason it was there in the first place was because people recognized that dev->power.pm_parent wouldn't be one of dev's ancestors in the device hierarchy. 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/
