On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Andrei Warkentin 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-omap@vger.kernel.org, > > linux-...@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 > 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.
suspend/resume handling is already in TODO list: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/135461 -M > > Maybe I have it all wrong though :-). > > A -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
