On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Andrei Warkentin 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 > 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.
suspend/resume handling is already in TODO list: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/135461 -M > > Maybe I have it all wrong though :-). > > A -- 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
