On 20 December 2017 at 13:08, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 20 December 2017 at 10:02, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi Ulf,
>>
>> On Wednesday 20 December 2017 02:05 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 20 December 2017 at 07:42, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Hi Ulf,
On Wednesday 20 Decemb
On 20 December 2017 at 10:02, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Wednesday 20 December 2017 02:05 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 20 December 2017 at 07:42, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>> Hi Ulf,
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 20 December 2017 02:52 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
The runtime PM de
Hi Ulf,
On Wednesday 20 December 2017 02:05 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 20 December 2017 at 07:42, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi Ulf,
>>
>> On Wednesday 20 December 2017 02:52 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is a bit unnecessary complicated
>>> and the m
On 20 December 2017 at 07:42, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Wednesday 20 December 2017 02:52 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is a bit unnecessary complicated
>> and the main reason is because it operates on the phy device, which is
>> created by
Hi Ulf,
On Wednesday 20 December 2017 02:52 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is a bit unnecessary complicated
> and the main reason is because it operates on the phy device, which is
> created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of the phy provider
> de
The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is a bit unnecessary complicated
and the main reason is because it operates on the phy device, which is
created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of the phy provider
device.
Let's simplify the code, by replacing the existing calls to
phy_pm_ru