...
It's not a problem to change this patchset. The problem is that if you'll grep mainline for 'pm_runtime_disable', you will find that there are a lot of drivers in a potential trouble.
Let's start by fixing this patchset, please - then we can consider what to do with the other cases separately.
Yeah, should be better to discuss it separately.
...
void __pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev, bool check_resume) {
flush_work(&dev->power.work);What about the latency this may introduce? I am not sure that is acceptable here!?
I'm not aware about any code which relies on the original 'cancelling' behaviour, perhaps Rafael should have more insight.
...
The sysfs rpm-forbid is a separate problem and it's less troublesome since it requires root privileges. It's also not something that userspace touches casually. For now I don't know what could be done about it.
As I said, the common method to address this problem is to run the following sequence:
pm_runtime_get_sync() "power off the device" pm_runtime_disable() pm_runtime_put_noidle()
This works even if user space, via sysfs, has triggered a call to pm_runtime_forbid(). Or doesn't it?
If you don't like it, pm_runtime_force_suspend() should work too, at least for your cases, I believe.
I'll update the patches, thank you.