2013/12/4 Mugunthan V N :
> On Wednesday 04 December 2013 09:14 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> This is v2 of an RFC sent earlier [1] to reduce power consumption of network
>> PHYs with link that are either unused or the corresponding netdev is down.
>>
>> In contrast to RFCv1, this now
2013/12/4 Mugunthan V N mugunthan...@ti.com:
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 09:14 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
This is v2 of an RFC sent earlier [1] to reduce power consumption of network
PHYs with link that are either unused or the corresponding netdev is down.
In contrast to RFCv1, this
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 09:14 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> This is v2 of an RFC sent earlier [1] to reduce power consumption of network
> PHYs with link that are either unused or the corresponding netdev is down.
>
> In contrast to RFCv1, this now integrates phy_suspend/phy_resume
This is v2 of an RFC sent earlier [1] to reduce power consumption of network
PHYs with link that are either unused or the corresponding netdev is down.
In contrast to RFCv1, this now integrates phy_suspend/phy_resume transparent
to the netdev drivers. Also, phy_suspend now only suspends the PHY
This is v2 of an RFC sent earlier [1] to reduce power consumption of network
PHYs with link that are either unused or the corresponding netdev is down.
In contrast to RFCv1, this now integrates phy_suspend/phy_resume transparent
to the netdev drivers. Also, phy_suspend now only suspends the PHY
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 09:14 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
This is v2 of an RFC sent earlier [1] to reduce power consumption of network
PHYs with link that are either unused or the corresponding netdev is down.
In contrast to RFCv1, this now integrates phy_suspend/phy_resume
6 matches
Mail list logo