Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] PM: Reconcile different driver options for runtime PM integration with system sleep

[Ulf Hansson]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 21:25, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This series addresses a couple of issues related to the integration of runtime
> PM with system sleep I was talking about at the OSMP-summit 2025:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/1021332/
>
> Most importantly, DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND cannot be used along with
> pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() due to some conflicting expectations
> about the handling of device runtime PM status between these functions
> and the PM core.
>
> Also pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() currently cannot be used in PCI
> drivers and in drivers that collaborate with the general ACPI PM domain
> because they both don't expect their mid-layer runtime PM callbacks to
> be invoked during system-wide suspend and resume.
>
> Patch [1/9] is a preparatory cleanup changing the code to use 'true' and
> 'false' as needs_force_resume flag values for consistency.
>
> Patch [2/9] makes pm_runtime_force_suspend() check needs_force_resume along
> with the device's runtime PM status upfront, and bail out if it is set,
> which allows runtime PM status updates to be eliminated from both that function
> and pm_runtime_force_resume().
>
> Patch [3/9] causes the smart_suspend flag to be taken into account by
> pm_runtime_force_resume() which allows it to resume devices with smart_suspend
> set whose runtime PM status has been changed to RPM_ACTIVE by the PM core at
> the beginning of system resume.  After this patch, drivers that use
> pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() can also set DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND which
> may be useful, for example, if devices handled by them are involved in
> dependency chains with other devices setting DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND.
>
> The next two patches, [4-5/9], put pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume()
> and needs_force_resume under CONFIG_PM_SLEEP for consistency and also
> because using them outside system-wide PM transitions really doesn't make
> sense.
>
> Patch [6/9] makes the code for getting a runtime PM callback for a device
> a bit more straightforward in preparation for the subsequent changes.

I can't find this one. Seems like you did not submit it.

Perhaps make a resend and fixup the patch-numbering too?

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe