On Thursday, December 26, 2013 11:53:10 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> HI Rafael,
>
> (2013/12/26 10:01), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, December 23, 2013 02:58:38 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 06:07:06 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December
HI Rafael,
(2013/12/26 10:01), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, December 23, 2013 02:58:38 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 06:07:06 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, December 13, 2013 02:17:32 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
(2013/12/13 13:56), Rafael J. Wysocki
On Monday, December 23, 2013 02:58:38 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 06:07:06 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, December 13, 2013 02:17:32 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> > > (2013/12/13 13:56), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 13, 2013 11:56
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 06:07:06 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, December 13, 2013 02:17:32 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> > (2013/12/13 13:56), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 13, 2013 11:56:32 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> > >> Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
>
On Friday, December 13, 2013 02:17:32 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> (2013/12/13 13:56), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, December 13, 2013 11:56:32 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Please share your more detailed idea. I started to implement the following
> >>
(2013/12/13 13:56), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, December 13, 2013 11:56:32 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Rafael,
Hi,
Please share your more detailed idea. I started to implement the following
idea. But the idea has one problem.
The eject work flow can be:
(1) an eject event o
On Friday, December 13, 2013 11:56:32 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
Hi,
> Please share your more detailed idea. I started to implement the following
> idea. But the idea has one problem.
>
> >>> The eject work flow can be:
> >>> (1) an eject event occurs,
> >>> (2) the contain
Hi Rafael,
Please share your more detailed idea. I started to implement the following
idea. But the idea has one problem.
The eject work flow can be:
(1) an eject event occurs,
(2) the container "physical" device fails offline in acpi_scan_hot_remove()
emmitting, say, KOBJ_CHANG
(2013/12/03 22:15), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:46:24 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
(2013/11/29 22:08), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:36:55 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Rafael,
Hi,
Replying to this mail may be wrong.
OK, so this pa
On Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:46:24 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> (2013/11/29 22:08), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:36:55 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Replying to this mail may be wrong.
> >
> > OK, so this particular patch doesn
(2013/11/29 22:08), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:36:55 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Rafael,
Hi,
Replying to this mail may be wrong.
OK, so this particular patch doesn't break things any more?
Yes.
Do you remember following your patch?
http://lkml.org/lkm
On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:36:55 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
Hi,
> Replying to this mail may be wrong.
OK, so this particular patch doesn't break things any more?
> Do you remember following your patch?
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/23/97
>
> I want to add autoeject variable
Hi Rafael,
Replying to this mail may be wrong.
Do you remember following your patch?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/23/97
I want to add autoeject variable in acpi_hotplug_profile structure and
set autoecjet of container device "false".
Currently, I have a problem on ejecting container device. Sin
13 matches
Mail list logo
