On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The corresponding PCI code in pci_device_suspend() does not do
> any generic device disable or resource release. I don't know
> why PNP disables the device on suspend. I glanced through the
> ACPI spec but didn't
On 12/01/2007 09:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/30/2007 11:58 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Friday 30 November 2007 03:49:55 pm Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007
On 11/30/2007 11:58 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2007 03:49:55 pm Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
> Maybe we could either remove the
On 11/30/2007 11:58 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Friday 30 November 2007 03:49:55 pm Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Maybe we could either remove the
On 12/01/2007 09:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/30/2007 11:58 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Friday 30 November 2007 03:49:55 pm Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Maybe
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The corresponding PCI code in pci_device_suspend() does not do
any generic device disable or resource release. I don't know
why PNP disables the device on suspend. I glanced through the
ACPI spec but didn't see a
On Friday 30 November 2007 03:49:55 pm Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
> >>> Maybe we could either remove the pnp_{stop,start}_dev() calls
> >>> from the
On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
>>> Maybe we could either remove the pnp_{stop,start}_dev() calls
>>> from the suspend/resume path, or move the PNP resource management
>>> out of
On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
> Bjorn Helgaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 26 November 2007 11:05:38 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 26 November 2007 11:05:38 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I hit the bug,
On Friday 30 November 2007 03:49:55 pm Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Maybe we could either remove the pnp_{stop,start}_dev() calls
from the suspend/resume
On 11/30/2007 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 05:42:07 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Maybe we could either remove the pnp_{stop,start}_dev() calls
from the suspend/resume path, or move the PNP resource management
out of
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 26 November 2007 11:05:38 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ok, I hit the bug, suspend of 00:06 device complains about it:
> > >
On Monday 26 November 2007 11:05:38 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, I hit the bug, suspend of 00:06 device complains about it:
> > WARNING: at .../kernel/resource.c:185 __release_resource()
> >
> > Call Trace:
> > []
On Monday 26 November 2007 11:05:38 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I hit the bug, suspend of 00:06 device complains about it:
WARNING: at .../kernel/resource.c:185 __release_resource()
Call Trace:
[8023f7b5]
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:37 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 26 November 2007 11:05:38 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I hit the bug, suspend of 00:06 device complains about it:
WARNING: at
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:05:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Step aside. What's the purpose of having two similar patches for one issue,
> > it then warns about the same thing twice:
> >
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:05:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Step aside. What's the purpose of having two similar patches for one issue,
it then warns about the same thing twice:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Step aside. What's the purpose of having two similar patches for one issue,
> it then warns about the same thing twice:
> make-sure-nobodys-leaking-resources.patch
> releasing-resources-with-children.patch
Oh
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:41:16 +0100 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Step aside. What's the purpose of having two similar patches for one issue,
it then warns about the same thing twice:
make-sure-nobodys-leaking-resources.patch
releasing-resources-with-children.patch
Oh well. It's
Hi,
Step aside. What's the purpose of having two similar patches for one issue,
it then warns about the same thing twice:
make-sure-nobodys-leaking-resources.patch
releasing-resources-with-children.patch
Ok, I hit the bug, suspend of 00:06 device complains about it:
WARNING: at
Hi,
Step aside. What's the purpose of having two similar patches for one issue,
it then warns about the same thing twice:
make-sure-nobodys-leaking-resources.patch
releasing-resources-with-children.patch
Ok, I hit the bug, suspend of 00:06 device complains about it:
WARNING: at
22 matches
Mail list logo