Hi Ulf,
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 14 December 2017 at 11:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 11 December 2017 at 11:48, Geert
On 14 December 2017 at 11:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 11 December 2017 at 11:48, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Ulf
Hi Ulf,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 11 December 2017 at 11:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 10 December 2017 at 11:16, Geert
On 12 December 2017 at 09:16, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> That together with an option of allowing "consumed resource-devices"
>> (irqchip) to be included in the wakeup path. I am
Hi Ulf,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> That together with an option of allowing "consumed resource-devices"
> (irqchip) to be included in the wakeup path. I am thinking, perhaps
> another driver PM flag (DPM_FLAG_WAKEUP_PATH), that the PM core looks
On 11 December 2017 at 11:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 10 December 2017 at 11:16, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 3:30 AM,
Hi Ulf,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 10 December 2017 at 11:16, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki
>> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 13, 2017 4:46:42 PM
On 10 December 2017 at 11:16, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Rafael, Ulf,
>
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, November 13, 2017 4:46:42 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> For some bus types and PM domains, it's not
Hi Rafael, Ulf,
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 4:46:42 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> For some bus types and PM domains, it's not sufficient to only check the
>> return value from device_may_wakeup(), to fully understand
On 10 December 2017 at 03:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 4:46:42 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> For some bus types and PM domains, it's not sufficient to only check the
>> return value from device_may_wakeup(), to fully understand how to configure
>>
On Monday, November 13, 2017 4:46:42 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> For some bus types and PM domains, it's not sufficient to only check the
> return value from device_may_wakeup(), to fully understand how to configure
> wakeup settings for the device during system suspend.
>
> In particular,
Hi Ulf,
you have left some old naming WAKEUP_POWERED in your patch
On 13 November 2017 at 16:46, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> For some bus types and PM domains, it's not sufficient to only check the
> return value from device_may_wakeup(), to fully understand how to configure
>
For some bus types and PM domains, it's not sufficient to only check the
return value from device_may_wakeup(), to fully understand how to configure
wakeup settings for the device during system suspend.
In particular, sometimes the device may need to remain in its power state,
in case the driver
13 matches
Mail list logo