On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 21 December 2017 at 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the phy core >>>> device, which is created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of >>>> the phy provider device.
[cut] >> >> Also, I have considered how to deal with wakeup paths for phys, >> although I didn't want to post changes as a part of this series, but >> maybe I should to give a more complete picture? > > Yes, you should. > > The point is that without genpd using pm_runtime_force_suspend() the > phy code could very well stay the way it is. And it is logical, > because having a parent with enabled runtime PM without enabling > runtime PM for its children is at least conceptually questionable. Actually, I sort of agree that the phy's usage of runtime PM is too convoluted. For example, it uses pm_runtime_enabled() unnecessarily at least in some places, but that doesn't seem to be fixed by your patches. Thanks, Rafael
