Hi,

On Friday, July 01, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:

Alan Stern [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

OK, so the ->probe() part has been explained and makes sense, but I
would expect ->remove() to be similarily protected (as the documentation
states.)  But that is not the case.  Is that a bug?  If so, patch below
makes the code match the documentation.

I suspect it is a bug, but it's hard to be sure.  It's so _blatantly_ 
wrong that it looks like it was done deliberately.

heh

I seem to remeber having a problem with the pm_runtime_put_sync() after
drv->remove(dev) ...

So the code in question was introduced by

commit e1866b33b1e89f077b7132daae3dfd9a594e9a1a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref]
Date:   Fri Apr 29 00:33:45 2011 +0200

    PM / Runtime: Rework runtime PM handling during driver removal

with a long changelog explaining the reason why.  Which seems to make sense. ;-)

So I'm not sure.

Thanks,
Rafael