Alan Stern writes:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> > Kevin makes a good case that pm_runtime_resume() and related functions
>> > should succeed even when runtime PM is disabled, if the device is
>> > already in the desired state.
>> >
>> > The same may be true for pm_runti
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Kevin makes a good case that pm_runtime_resume() and related functions
> > should succeed even when runtime PM is disabled, if the device is
> > already in the desired state.
> >
> > The same may be true for pm_runtime_suspend(). What do you th
On Friday, September 21, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 20, 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > > From: Kevin Hilman
> > >
> > > When runtime PM is disabled, what we want is for callbacks not to be
> > > called from then on. Howeve
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > From: Kevin Hilman
> >
> > When runtime PM is disabled, what we want is for callbacks not to be
> > called from then on. However, currently, when runtime PM is disabled,
> > operations such
On Thursday, September 20, 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> From: Kevin Hilman
>
> When runtime PM is disabled, what we want is for callbacks not to be
> called from then on. However, currently, when runtime PM is disabled,
> operations such as 'get' will also fail even if the device is
> currently a
5 matches
Mail list logo