On Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:27:44 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 04:03:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 04:03:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > Here's a brief summary of the story behin
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 04:03:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Here's a brief summary of the story behind this patch...
> > >
> > > At one point, I suggested
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> > Here's a brief summary of the story behind this patch...
> >
> > At one point, I suggested to Dan that instead of doing something
> > special for these devices, we cou
That took me much more time than I had hoped, sorry about that.
On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Then you have no other objections to the patch?
> >
> > My concern still is that it will be confusing, because people w
On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Do you have any suggestions?
>
> I need some more time to think about that. I'm on vacation till Monday,
> I should be able to get to this by then. I hope that's not a problem.
Tomorrow is a national holiday in the US, so I'm taking some time of
On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Then you have no other objections to the patch?
> >
> > My concern still is that it will be confusing, because people won't read the
> > documentation carefully enough and will confuse
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:27:06AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Then you have no other objections to the patch?
> >
> > My concern still is that it will be confusing, because people won't read the
> > documentation carefully enough and will confu
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Then you have no other objections to the patch?
>
> My concern still is that it will be confusing, because people won't read the
> documentation carefully enough and will confuse "runtime PM never used" with
> "hardware can't do PM". I'm not sure
On Monday, June 30, 2014 10:42:19 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > Do you know of any tools that actually look at these files?
> > >
> > > I don't. Of course, that doesn't mean much.
> >
> > The only tool I'm aware of that may be looking at them is
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Do you know of any tools that actually look at these files?
> >
> > I don't. Of course, that doesn't mean much.
>
> The only tool I'm aware of that may be looking at them is powertop, so
> if the change doesn't affect powertop adversely, it sh
On Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:32:21 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > > One side point: The patch changes the string displayed f
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > > One side point: The patch changes the string displayed for the
> > > > power/runtime_status attribute file when disable_dept
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > > One side point: The patch changes the string displayed for the
> > > power/runtime_status attribute file when disable_depth > 0. Instead of
> > > "unsupported", it will now say "
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > One side point: The patch changes the string displayed for the
> > power/runtime_status attribute file when disable_depth > 0. Instead of
> > "unsupported", it will now say "disabled". The attribute will contain
> > "not supported" when the n
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:27:28PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:45:42 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How would you treat them specially? Add a "runtime_pm_not_s
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:45:42 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > How would you treat them specially? Add a "runtime_pm_not_supported"
> > > > flag?
> > >
> > > I thought about a "runtime PM has
17 matches
Mail list logo
