On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Andrei Warkentin <awarken...@vmware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Greg KH" <g...@kroah.com> >> To: "Josh Triplett" <j...@joshtriplett.org> >> Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manj...@ti.com>, >> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org, "Grant Likely" >> <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca>, linux-o...@vger.kernel.org, >> linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org, >> "Dilan Lee" <di...@nvidia.com>, "Mark Brown" >> <broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>, manjun...@jasper.es >> Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:55:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism >> > > I'm a bit of a fly on the wall here, but I'm curious how this impacts > suspend/resume. > device_initialize->device_pm_init are called from device_register, so > certainly this > patch doesn't also ensure that the PM ordering matches probe ordering, which > is bound > to break suspend, right? Was this ever tested with the OMAP target? Shouldn't > the
Inside device_add(), device_pm_add is called before bus_probe_device, so the patch can't change the device order in pm list, and just change the driver probe order. > PM change be also part of this patch set? I don't see why you would want to > have this in > without the PM changes. > thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
