On Thursday, October 10, 2013 01:21:53 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Thanks for response!
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > > I would greatly prefer to see the core rpm_idle() routine changed
> > > instead. Currently the last line says:
> > >
> >
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Thanks for response!
You're welcome.
> > I would greatly prefer to see the core rpm_idle() routine changed
> > instead. Currently the last line says:
> >
> > return retval ? retval : rpm_suspend(dev, rpmflags);
> >
> > The second a
On 10 October 2013 16:45, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
>> Typically the runtime idle function is triggered after resume and
>> probe. Instead of immediately requesting the device to go into
>> in-active state we make use of the autosuspend, if we have enabled
>> it
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Typically the runtime idle function is triggered after resume and
> probe. Instead of immediately requesting the device to go into
> in-active state we make use of the autosuspend, if we have enabled
> it earlier.
>
> Cc: Len Brown
> Cc: Pavel Machek
>
Typically the runtime idle function is triggered after resume and
probe. Instead of immediately requesting the device to go into
in-active state we make use of the autosuspend, if we have enabled
it earlier.
Cc: Len Brown
Cc: Pavel Machek
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Kevin Hilman
Cc: Alan Stern
