From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755330AbZHNRNY@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755330AbZHNRNY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:13:24 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755244AbZHNRNY
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:13:24 -0400
Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:40307 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754746AbZHNRNX (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:13:23 -0400
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:13:56 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.31-rc5-rjw; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0908141032070.2987-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> <200908141905.32766.rjw@sisk.pl>
In-Reply-To: <200908141905.32766.rjw@sisk.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200908141913.56884.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 14 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 14 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:22:44AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
...
> > > Though perhaps the device level runtime_idle shouldn't be void - that 
> > > way the bus can ask the driver whether its suspend conditions have been 
> > > satisfied? Right now there doesn't seem to be any way for the bus to ask 
> > > that.
> > 
> > If you want to get the device-level runtime_idle involved, you can make
> > _it_ responsible for scheduling the suspend.  Then the bus-level code
> > simply has to check whether everything is okay at the bus level, and if
> > it is, call the device-level routine.
> > 
> > However changing the return type wouldn't hurt anything, and it would 
> > allow the pm_schedule_suspend call to be centralized in the bus code.  
> > You could ask Rafael about it, or just send him a patch.
> 
> Well, I'm not against that, but what should pm_runtime_idle() do with the
> result returned by it?  Just pass it to the caller?

Hm, perhaps its better to ignore it, though.

Rafael