On Friday, April 05, 2013 01:39:58 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, April 05, 2013 09:27:40 AM Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > > Hi Li, > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Li Fei <fei...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count > > > is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct > > > value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call > > > pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case. > > > > Is it better then to call pm_runtime_put_noidle instead? This way > > we're sure to only take care of usage_count without ever calling any > > underlying pm handler. > > Both would break code that does > > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); > > <device access> > > pm_runtime_put(dev); > > without checking the result of pm_runtime_get_sync() - which BTW is completely > unnecessary in the majority of cases.
Sorry, scratch that. I should have had a closer look at the context. Yes, it better to call pm_runtime_put_noidle() in this case. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
