On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 09:34:11 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2014-11-18 01:39:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > The number of and dependencies between high-level power management
> > Kconfig options make life much harder than necessary. Several
> >
On Tue 2014-11-18 01:39:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The number of and dependencies between high-level power management
> Kconfig options make life much harder than necessary. Several
> conbinations of them have to be tested and supported, even though
> some of
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 09:34:11 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
On Tue 2014-11-18 01:39:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
The number of and dependencies between high-level power management
Kconfig options make life much harder than necessary.
On Tue 2014-11-18 01:39:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
The number of and dependencies between high-level power management
Kconfig options make life much harder than necessary. Several
conbinations of them have to be tested and supported, even
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
The number of and dependencies between high-level power management
Kconfig options make life much harder than necessary. Several
conbinations of them have to be tested and supported, even though
some of those combinations are very rarely used in practice (it
they are
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >>> It makes little sense to use generic power
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net writes:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
It makes little
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
The number of and dependencies between high-level power management
Kconfig options make life much harder than necessary. Several
conbinations of them have to be tested and supported, even though
some of those combinations are very rarely used in
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
> >>
> >> Does it?
>
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime
On Fri 2014-11-14 23:41:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 14, 2014 09:36:17 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
> >
> > > Hi Kevin,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > >> It makes little sense to use generic power domains
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
>>
>> Does it?
>> It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at least on my
>> boards
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Does it?
It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at
On Fri 2014-11-14 23:41:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, November 14, 2014 09:36:17 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org writes:
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
It makes little sense to use
On Friday, November 14, 2014 09:36:17 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
>
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
> >
> > Does it?
> > It still powers down the PM
On Friday, November 14, 2014 09:27:41 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> Ulf Hansson writes:
>
> > On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> From: Kevin Hilman
> >>
> >> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
> >> Also, since the complexities of
Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
>
> Does it?
> It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at least on my
> boards ;-)
Sure, but your devices
Hi Ulf,
Ulf Hansson writes:
> On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> From: Kevin Hilman
>>
>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
>> Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
>> causing more trouble and confusion than
Hi Ulf,
Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org writes:
On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org writes:
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Does it?
It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at least on my
boards
On Friday, November 14, 2014 09:27:41 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
Hi Ulf,
Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org writes:
On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime
On Friday, November 14, 2014 09:36:17 AM Kevin Hilman wrote:
Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org writes:
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Does it?
It still
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Does it?
It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at least on my
boards ;-)
> Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
On 14 November 2014 08:26, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> From: Kevin Hilman
>>
>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
>> Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
>> causing more trouble and
On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> From: Kevin Hilman
>
> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
> Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
> causing more trouble and confusion than they're worth, let's simplify
> the world
From: Kevin Hilman
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
causing more trouble and confusion than they're worth, let's simplify
the world by making genpd always enable runtime PM.
Cc: Ulf Hansson
From: Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
causing more trouble and confusion than they're worth, let's simplify
the world by making genpd always enable runtime PM.
On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Also, since the complexities of handling the !PM_RUNTIME case are
causing more trouble and confusion than they're
On 14 November 2014 08:26, Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org wrote:
On 13 November 2014 23:28, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Also, since the complexities of handling the
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@kernel.org wrote:
It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
Does it?
It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at least on my
boards ;-)
Also, since the complexities of handling the
32 matches
Mail list logo
