On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:05:15 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 10:34 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> > 于 2012-12-12 2:30, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> >> Hi Gerry,
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >>> Hi Rafael,
> >>> I have worked out a patch set to clean
On 12/12/2012 10:34 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> 于 2012-12-12 2:30, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
>> Hi Gerry,
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
>>> Hi Rafael,
>>> I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
>>> notifications,
>>> please refer to
>>>
于 2012-12-12 2:30, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> Hi Gerry,
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>> I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
>> notifications,
>> please refer to
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg17822.html
>>
于 2012-12-12 2:30, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
Hi Gerry,
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
notifications,
please refer to
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg17822.html
The patchset
On 12/12/2012 10:34 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
于 2012-12-12 2:30, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
Hi Gerry,
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
notifications,
please refer to
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:05:15 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
On 12/12/2012 10:34 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
于 2012-12-12 2:30, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
Hi Gerry,
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
Hi Gerry,
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
> notifications,
> please refer to
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg17822.html
> The patchset doesn't apply cleanly to Bjorn's
Hi Rafael,
I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
notifications,
please refer to
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg17822.html
The patchset doesn't apply cleanly to Bjorn's latest pci-next tree. I
will
help to rebase it if needed.
Regards!
Gerry
On
On Monday, December 10, 2012 06:26:08 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, thanks for the pointers. I actually see more differences between our
> >> patchsets. For one example, you seem to have left the parent->ops.bind()
> >> stuff in
On Monday, December 10, 2012 06:26:08 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
OK, thanks for the pointers. I actually see more differences between our
patchsets. For one example, you seem to have left the parent-ops.bind()
stuff in
Hi Rafael,
I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
notifications,
please refer to
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg17822.html
The patchset doesn't apply cleanly to Bjorn's latest pci-next tree. I
will
help to rebase it if needed.
Regards!
Gerry
On
Hi Gerry,
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I have worked out a patch set to clean up ACPI/PCI related
notifications,
please refer to
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg17822.html
The patchset doesn't apply cleanly to Bjorn's latest
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> OK, thanks for the pointers. I actually see more differences between our
>> patchsets. For one example, you seem to have left the parent->ops.bind()
>> stuff in acpi_add_single_object() which calls it even drivers_autoprobe is
>>
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 02:02:14 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 03:14:32 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Monday, December 10, 2012
On Monday, December 10, 2012 03:14:32 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM,
On Monday, December 10, 2012 03:22:48 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42
On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can we expand the BUS_ADD_*
On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>
> >> Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to other devices instead of just
> >> acpi_device?
> >>
> >> aka we
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to other devices instead of just
>> acpi_device?
>>
>> aka we should let struct device has this add_type field.
>
> Having done that in
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > Notice that one member of struct acpi_bus_ops, acpi_op_add, is not
> > used anywhere any more and the relationship between its remaining
> >
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Notice that one member of struct acpi_bus_ops, acpi_op_add, is not
used anywhere any more and the
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to other devices instead of just
acpi_device?
aka we should let struct device has this add_type field.
Having done that in
On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to other devices instead of just
acpi_device?
aka we should
On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
Can we expand the BUS_ADD_*
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, December 09,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
Can we expand the BUS_ADD_*
On Monday, December 10, 2012 03:22:48 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, December 09, 2012
On Monday, December 10, 2012 03:14:32 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM,
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 02:02:14 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 03:14:32 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, December 10,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
OK, thanks for the pointers. I actually see more differences between our
patchsets. For one example, you seem to have left the parent-ops.bind()
stuff in acpi_add_single_object() which calls it even drivers_autoprobe is
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Notice that one member of struct acpi_bus_ops, acpi_op_add, is not
> used anywhere any more and the relationship between its remaining
> members, acpi_op_match and acpi_op_start, is such that it doesn't
> make
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Notice that one member of struct acpi_bus_ops, acpi_op_add, is not
used anywhere any more and the relationship between its remaining
members, acpi_op_match and acpi_op_start, is such that it doesn't
make sense to set the latter without setting the former at the same
time.
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Notice that one member of struct acpi_bus_ops, acpi_op_add, is not
used anywhere any more and the relationship between its remaining
members, acpi_op_match and acpi_op_start, is such that it doesn't
make sense to set the latter without setting
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Notice that one member of struct acpi_bus_ops, acpi_op_add, is not
used anywhere any more and the relationship between its remaining
members, acpi_op_match and
36 matches
Mail list logo