[...] >> >> When pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev) is called, dev's child device may >> still be runtime PM enabled and active. >> I was suggesting to add a check for this scenario, to see if dev's >> child device is runtime PM is enabled, as and additional constraint >> before deciding to return an error code. > > Well, that's sort of difficult to do, however, because the code would need to > walk all of the children of the device and the child power lock cannot be > acquired under the one of the parent, so it would be fragile and ugly.
Yeah, you have a point. > >> The idea was to get a consistent behavior, from the >> pm_runtime_set_active|suspended() APIs point of view, and not from the >> runtime PM core point of view. > > Yes, but the cost is high and the benefit is shallow. > > The enable-time WARN() should cover the really broken cases without that > much complexity. Fair enough! Feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <[email protected]> Kind regards Uffe
