On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote: > > Here's a brief summary of the story behind this patch... > > > > At one point, I suggested to Dan that instead of doing something > > special for these devices, we could simply have the runtime_suspend() > > routine always return -EBUSY. He didn't like that idea because then > > the user would see the device was never powering down but would have no > > idea why. The rpm_not_supported flag provides this information to the > > user by causing the power/runtime_status attribute to say "not > > supported". (Although to be entirely fair, we could just put a message > > in the kernel log during probe if the hardware doesn't support runtime > > suspend.) > > > > Instead, Dan introduced a messy PM QoS mechanism in commit > > e3d105055525. I didn't like that approach, but Greg merged it before I > > objected. > > That really looks a bit like a hack to me to be honest. > > Greg, what's your plan toward this?
If I need to revert something that you all find was wrong, I'll be glad to do so, sorry for merging something too early. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
