On 24 December 2017 at 13:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 4:09:33 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> >
>> > So IMO the changes you are proposing make sense regardless of the
>> > genpd issue, because they generally simplify the phy code, but the
>> > additional
On Saturday, December 23, 2017 4:09:33 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
>
> >
> > So IMO the changes you are proposing make sense regardless of the
> > genpd issue, because they generally simplify the phy code, but the
> > additional use_runtime_pm field in struct phy represents redundant
> > inf
[...]
>
> So IMO the changes you are proposing make sense regardless of the
> genpd issue, because they generally simplify the phy code, but the
> additional use_runtime_pm field in struct phy represents redundant
> information (manipulating reference counters shouldn't matter if
> runtime PM is d
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 23 December 2017 at 02:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 21 December 2017 at 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson
wrote:
> T
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the phy core
>> device, which is created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of
>> the phy provider device.
>>
On 23 December 2017 at 02:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 21 December 2017 at 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the ph
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 21 December 2017 at 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 21 December 2017 at 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the phy core
>>> device, which is created by the phy core and assig
On 21 December 2017 at 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the phy core
>> device, which is created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of
>> the phy provider device.
>>
>>
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the phy core
> device, which is created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of
> the phy provider device.
>
> The behaviour around the runtime PM deployment cause some issue
The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the phy core
device, which is created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of
the phy provider device.
The behaviour around the runtime PM deployment cause some issues during
system suspend, in cases when the phy provider device
11 matches
Mail list logo
