On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:51:55PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2018-03-23 19:17:49)
> >
> >
> > On 23/03/18 05:34, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> > > We're seeing "RPM wakelock ref not held during HW access" warning
> > > otherwise. And since IRQ are synced for runt
Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2018-03-23 19:17:49)
>
>
> On 23/03/18 05:34, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> > We're seeing "RPM wakelock ref not held during HW access" warning
> > otherwise. And since IRQ are synced for runtime suspend, we can use the
> > variant without wakeref assert.
> >
> > Repo
Quoting Michał Winiarski (2018-03-23 14:34:04)
> We're seeing "RPM wakelock ref not held during HW access" warning
> otherwise. And since IRQ are synced for runtime suspend, we can use the
> variant without wakeref assert.
>
> Reported-by: Marta Löfstedt
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/s
On 23/03/18 05:34, Michał Winiarski wrote:
We're seeing "RPM wakelock ref not held during HW access" warning
otherwise. And since IRQ are synced for runtime suspend, we can use the
variant without wakeref assert.
Reported-by: Marta Löfstedt
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?
We're seeing "RPM wakelock ref not held during HW access" warning
otherwise. And since IRQ are synced for runtime suspend, we can use the
variant without wakeref assert.
Reported-by: Marta Löfstedt
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105710
Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski
Cc: