On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 30 December 2017 at 01:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> In case the WAKEUP_PATH flag has been set in a later phase than from the
>>> ->suspend() callback, the PM core don't set the ->
On 30 December 2017 at 01:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> In case the WAKEUP_PATH flag has been set in a later phase than from the
>> ->suspend() callback, the PM core don't set the ->power.wakeup_path status
>> flag for the device. Therefore
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> In case the WAKEUP_PATH flag has been set in a later phase than from the
> ->suspend() callback, the PM core don't set the ->power.wakeup_path status
> flag for the device. Therefore, let's be safe and check it explicitly.
>
> Signed-off-by: U
In case the WAKEUP_PATH flag has been set in a later phase than from the
->suspend() callback, the PM core don't set the ->power.wakeup_path status
flag for the device. Therefore, let's be safe and check it explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson
---
drivers/base/power/domain.c | 8 ++--
1 fi
