Re: runtime PM usage_count during driver_probe_device()?

On Friday, July 01, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

Hi,

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

quoted

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. ;-)

Okay, that seems fair enough.  Looks like the documentation needs to be 
updated to match, though.

Yes, it does.

And we probably still want to make sure that access to the 
power/control and related attribute files is mutually exclusive with 
probe and remove.

I agree.

Thanks,
Rafael