Hi,
On Wednesday, 20 December 2006 00:30, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call
> > pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be
> > called before pm_ops->finish()
> > (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail
Hi!
> As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call
> pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be
> called before pm_ops->finish()
> (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004164.html).
> For consistency, it seems reasonabl
Hi,
On Monday, 18 December 2006 08:42, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call
> > pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call
> pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be
> called before pm_ops->finish()
> (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermai
Hi,
As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call
pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be
called before pm_ops->finish()
(cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004164.html).
For consistency, it seems reasonable to call
