On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Andrei Warkentin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Greg KH" <[email protected]> >> To: "Josh Triplett" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <[email protected]>, >> [email protected], "Grant Likely" >> <[email protected]>, [email protected], >> [email protected], [email protected], >> "Dilan Lee" <[email protected]>, "Mark Brown" >> <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:55:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism >> > > I'm a bit of a fly on the wall here, but I'm curious how this impacts > suspend/resume. > device_initialize->device_pm_init are called from device_register, so > certainly this > patch doesn't also ensure that the PM ordering matches probe ordering, which > is bound > to break suspend, right? Was this ever tested with the OMAP target? Shouldn't > the
Inside device_add(), device_pm_add is called before bus_probe_device, so the patch can't change the device order in pm list, and just change the driver probe order. > PM change be also part of this patch set? I don't see why you would want to > have this in > without the PM changes. > thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
