On Friday, October 02, 2015 10:40:49 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 2 October 2015 at 10:10, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com> wrote: > > On 2 October 2015 at 09:48, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 2 October 2015 at 09:14, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com> > >> wrote: > >>> If a suitable prepare callback cannot be found for a given device and > >>> its driver has no PM callbacks at all, assume that it can go direct to > >>> complete when the system goes to sleep. > >>> > >>> The reason for this is that there's lots of devices in a system that do > >>> no PM at all and there's no reason for them to prevent their ancestors > >>> to do direct_complete if they can support it. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Changes in v8: > >>> - Move no_pm_callbacks field into CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > >>> - Call device_check_pm_callbacks only after a device is bound or unbound > >> > >> Devices that don't use a driver, will not get this feature for "free". > >> I expect in those cases, they will have to call > >> device_check_pm_callbacks() themselves, right? > > > > You are right, but wonder if we shouldn't go back to calling > > device_check_pm_callbacks() from device_pm_add() and > > dev_pm_domain_set() so they don't have to. > > That seems reasonable to me, and I didn't quite understand why you > decided to remove it. :-)
Right. device_check_pm_callbacks() needs to be called on device registration too (in case the device doesn't have a driver and doesn't use a PM domain) and it won't hurt to call it in dev_pm_domain_set() either, although that likely will be redundant in the majority of cases. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
