On Friday, July 31, 2015 11:39:07 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-07-15, 20:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, on ACPI systems we actually do probe CPU devices. We have a processor
> > driver there that binds to CPU devices and the cpufreq driver is just a
> > frontend to that.
>
> Hmm, maybe
On 30-07-15, 20:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, on ACPI systems we actually do probe CPU devices. We have a processor
> driver there that binds to CPU devices and the cpufreq driver is just a
> frontend to that.
Hmm, maybe I need to look at that in detail..
> So question is what prevents
On Friday, July 31, 2015 11:39:07 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 30-07-15, 20:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, on ACPI systems we actually do probe CPU devices. We have a processor
driver there that binds to CPU devices and the cpufreq driver is just a
frontend to that.
Hmm, maybe I need
On 30-07-15, 20:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, on ACPI systems we actually do probe CPU devices. We have a processor
driver there that binds to CPU devices and the cpufreq driver is just a
frontend to that.
Hmm, maybe I need to look at that in detail..
So question is what prevents
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 09:14:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-07-15, 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > There is a small problem with it that I've already pointed out to
> > > > Viresh.
> > > >
> > > > Namely, while changing subsys_interface_(un)register() to handle return
> > > >
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 09:14:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 30-07-15, 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
There is a small problem with it that I've already pointed out to
Viresh.
Namely, while changing subsys_interface_(un)register() to handle return
values from -add_dev(),
On 30-07-15, 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > There is a small problem with it that I've already pointed out to Viresh.
> > >
> > > Namely, while changing subsys_interface_(un)register() to handle return
> > > values from ->add_dev(), it doesn't do the same thing in
> > > bus_probe_device()
On 29-07-15, 14:19, Greg KH wrote:
> I don't see how this is a stable bug fix, what is resolved by it that
> doesn't work today? Is there some code that is expecting this
> functionality that has never been present?
>
> I'll go queue it up, but I don't think it is -stable material, but feel
>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:29:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 03:37:43 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:01:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 03:37:43 PM Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:01:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > ->add_dev() may fail and the error
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:01:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > ->add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
> > > the caller.
> > >
> > >
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > ->add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
> > the caller.
> >
> > For example, if some of the resources aren't ready yet and -EPROBE_DEFER
> > is
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> ->add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
> the caller.
>
> For example, if some of the resources aren't ready yet and -EPROBE_DEFER
> is returned from ->add_dev(), then the owner of 'struct
>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
-add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
the caller.
For example, if some of the resources aren't ready yet and -EPROBE_DEFER
is returned from -add_dev(), then the owner of 'struct
subsys_interface'
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
-add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
the caller.
For example, if some of the resources aren't ready yet and -EPROBE_DEFER
is returned
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:01:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
-add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
the caller.
For example, if
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 03:37:43 PM Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:01:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
-add_dev() may fail and the error returned from
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:29:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 03:37:43 PM Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:01:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 02:19:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:32:47PM +0530,
On 29-07-15, 14:19, Greg KH wrote:
I don't see how this is a stable bug fix, what is resolved by it that
doesn't work today? Is there some code that is expecting this
functionality that has never been present?
I'll go queue it up, but I don't think it is -stable material, but feel
free to
On 30-07-15, 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
There is a small problem with it that I've already pointed out to Viresh.
Namely, while changing subsys_interface_(un)register() to handle return
values from -add_dev(), it doesn't do the same thing in
bus_probe_device()
which I
->add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
the caller.
For example, if some of the resources aren't ready yet and -EPROBE_DEFER
is returned from ->add_dev(), then the owner of 'struct
subsys_interface' may want to try probing again at a later point of
time. And that
-add_dev() may fail and the error returned from it can be useful for
the caller.
For example, if some of the resources aren't ready yet and -EPROBE_DEFER
is returned from -add_dev(), then the owner of 'struct
subsys_interface' may want to try probing again at a later point of
time. And that
22 matches
Mail list logo
