On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> Having chased boogiemen in this area before, I think this patch makes good
>> sense even though it breaks the device model a little. However, the
>> hardware in question really is specia
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 05:27 pm, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Jung-uk Kim
wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:55 pm, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jung-uk Kim
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:02 pm, Warner Losh wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:55 pm, Brandon Gooch wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jung-uk Kim
> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:02 pm, Warner Losh wrote:
>> >> Having chased boogiemen in this area before, I think this patch
>
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:55 pm, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jung-uk Kim
wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:02 pm, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> Having chased boogiemen in this area before, I think this patch
> >> makes good sense even though it breaks the device model
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:02 pm, Warner Losh wrote:
>> Having chased boogiemen in this area before, I think this patch
>> makes good sense even though it breaks the device model a little.
>> However, the hardware in question really is special
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> Having chased boogiemen in this area before, I think this patch makes good
> sense even though it breaks the device model a little. However, the hardware
> in question really is special on x86...
>
> Warner
Sorry Warner, would you mind elab
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 04:02 pm, Warner Losh wrote:
> Having chased boogiemen in this area before, I think this patch
> makes good sense even though it breaks the device model a little.
> However, the hardware in question really is special on x86...
Actually I was working on a similar patch and
Having chased boogiemen in this area before, I think this patch makes good
sense even though it breaks the device model a little. However, the hardware
in question really is special on x86...
Warner
On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Taku Y
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:31:33 +0900
> Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
>
>> A patch is attached.
> Mailman ate it ;)
> Here it is.
>
> --
> -|-__ YAMAMOTO, Taku
> | __ <
>
> - A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs. -
>
Throughou
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> Now, thanks to jkim's work, we have power_suspend and power_resume
> EVENTHANDLERs since r220647.
> I think it's a good time to move scsuspend()/scresume() to that scheme, too.
>
> That is:
> * We can achieve definitive orderi
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:31:33 +0900
Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
> A patch is attached.
Mailman ate it ;)
Here it is.
--
-|-__ YAMAMOTO, Taku
| __ <
- A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs. -
--- sys/dev/syscons/syscons.c.orig 2010-12-08 11:34:37.173729146 +0900
+++ sys/de
Hi all,
Now, thanks to jkim's work, we have power_suspend and power_resume
EVENTHANDLERs since r220647.
I think it's a good time to move scsuspend()/scresume() to that scheme, too.
That is:
* We can achieve definitive ordering between vga, drm and so on:
no need to depend on scpm hackery wit
12 matches
Mail list logo
