On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 07:22:09AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> writes: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:02:35AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Wenyou Yang <wenyou.y...@atmel.com> writes:
> >> > + if (!pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) {
> >> > + clk_disable_unprepare(as->clk);
> >> > + pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(dev);
> >> > + }
> >> a.k.a. pm_runtime_put_sync() since the ->runtime_suspend() callback does
> >> the same thing.
> > Will that do the right thing when runtime PM is disabled in Kconfig?
> Good point.
> Then the way to make this cleaner, and obvious on inspection that system
> suspend/resume are doing the same thing as runtime suspend/resume is to
> have ->suspend call the runtime_suspend function.
> The runtime suspend/resume functions then should be wrapped in CONFIG_PM
> instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
That sounds reasonable, yes. I keep on wishing we didn't have so much
configurability in the PM :/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
