From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Runtime: Clean up pm_runtime_disable()
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:01:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201001291601.37812.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1001282129150.5247-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
On Friday 29 January 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > - * If @check_resume is set and there's a resume request pending when
> > > > - * __pm_runtime_disable() is called and power.disable_depth is zero, the
> > > > - * function will wake up the device before disabling its run-time PM.
> > > > */
> > > > -void __pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev, bool check_resume)
> > > > +void pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev)
> > > > {
> > >
> > > Why did you decide to remove the check_resume argument? That decision
> > > should be explained in the patch description.
> >
> > Well, I thought the "which is not necessary any more" would be a sufficient
> > explanation ...
>
> But why is it not necessary now,
Well, all of the existing callers use only one value of it, which is 'false'
(perhaps I should write that in the changelog).
> given that apparently it was necessary before? What has changed to make
> it unnecessary?
It was used in the system suspend code path in main.c (in dpm_prepare()) IIRC,
but it was replaced by the current code.
I don't really think it's useful to try to recall why it was used at one point.
It's not used now and I don't have a usage case for it. If no one else knows
it will be necessary, removing it is the right thing to do.
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-29 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-27 23:09 [PATCH 0/2] PM / Runtime: Clean-up and documentation Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-01-27 23:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] PM / Runtime: Clean up pm_runtime_disable() Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-01-28 15:37 ` Alan Stern
2010-01-28 20:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-01-29 2:30 ` Alan Stern
2010-01-29 15:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2010-01-29 19:43 ` Alan Stern
2010-01-29 20:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-01-27 23:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] PM / Runtime: Document power.runtime_auto and related functions Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201001291601.37812.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®