On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:29, Sudeep Holla <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:18:57PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:06, Sudeep Holla <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > > > 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. > > > > Okay, I see. > > > > Anyway, I will likely need to restore part of this change, via my > > cluster idling series then. As from that point, the cpu device that > > you call device_set_pm_not_required() for, starts to be used from both > > PM core and runtime PM point of view. But I guess that's okay then. > > > > Ah I see. I can drop for CPU devices then. Since I didn't see any use for > them, I set the flag, but I can drop it now or you can do that as part > of that series.
Well, I prefer if you drop it for CPU devices, as least for now. > There are quite a few devices(especially the ones > registered under system subsys can set this but I would take it separate > once we settle on this). Also Rafael may have seen use for few more > devices when he suggested this. Yep, let's find another first user of this. Additionally, it seems like we should drop the print in device_pm_add(). Kind regards Uffe
