On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 03:29:07PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 11:36, Sudeep Holla <[email protected]> wrote:
[..] > > > > May be, but as mentioned above we can't really. Also this change will > > help to avoid creating unnecessary power sysfs which is mainly runtime > > pm related for some of the devices created. CPU/caches was just one > > example which triggered this, but this can be more useful. We can avoid > > adding them to dpm list. > > Well, to me the approach you suggest sounds prone to errors and I am > afraid people may abuse it. Moreover, I don't know if there is other > problems with it, let's see what Rafael thinks about it. > Sorry, I should have put reference to earlier discussion that led to this patch. For your reference: [1] > Instead I think we should make the PM core to deal with this scenario, > as all it boils down to, is to allow a device to be unregistered and > registered during system suspend/resume, with a parent device that is > "persistent" during the sequence. > OK > Perhaps we could even just drop the corresponding printed warning, > "cache: parent cpu1 should not be sleeping", in device_pm_add() as I > wonder if it's really a necessary print. > Indeed, I was ignoring knowing that it's harmless. But more people started to complain, and Rafael suggested this which I agree as we have several pseudo devices created in the kernel that we can bypass some of these pm handling knowing we won't need it. -- Regards, Sudeep [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/1078
