On 5 December 2017 at 04:23, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
>>
>> On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
>
>> > Sure! I tested your patch, and
On 5 December 2017 at 04:23, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
>>
>> On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
>
>> > Sure! I tested your patch, and then the following message disappeared!
>> >
>> >Enabling runtime
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
>> >
>> > On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> >
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
>> >
>> > On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Sure! I tested your patch, and then the
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
> >
> > On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> > wrote:
>
> > > Sure! I tested your patch, and then the following message disappeared!
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
> >
> > On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> > wrote:
>
> > > Sure! I tested your patch, and then the following message disappeared!
> > >
> > >Enabling runtime
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
>
> On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
> > Sure! I tested your patch, and then the following message disappeared!
> >
> >Enabling runtime PM for inactive device
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 7:41 PM
>
> On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
> > Sure! I tested your patch, and then the following message disappeared!
> >
> >Enabling runtime PM for inactive device (ee080200.usb-phy) with active
> > children
On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 6:22 PM
>>
>> + Kishon
>>
>> On 30 November 2017 at 13:51, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> From:
On 1 December 2017 at 12:03, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 6:22 PM
>>
>> + Kishon
>>
>> On 30 November 2017 at 13:51, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:59 PM
>> >>
>> >>
Hi again,
> From: Yoshihiro Shimoda, Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 8:04 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> However, the following message still exists.
>
>Enabling runtime PM for inactive device (ee08.usb) with active children
>
> So, I guess ohci-platform.c also has similar issue.
>
> JFYI, the
Hi again,
> From: Yoshihiro Shimoda, Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 8:04 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> However, the following message still exists.
>
>Enabling runtime PM for inactive device (ee08.usb) with active children
>
> So, I guess ohci-platform.c also has similar issue.
>
> JFYI, the
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 6:22 PM
>
> + Kishon
>
> On 30 November 2017 at 13:51, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:59 PM
> >>
> >> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43,
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 6:22 PM
>
> + Kishon
>
> On 30 November 2017 at 13:51, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:59 PM
> >>
> >> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven
> >> wrote:
> >>
+ Kishon
On 30 November 2017 at 13:51, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:59 PM
>>
>> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Ulf,
>
>> Okay, so the
+ Kishon
On 30 November 2017 at 13:51, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:59 PM
>>
>> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Ulf,
>
>> Okay, so the problem remains no matter which solution for wakeup you
>>
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:59 PM
>
> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Ulf,
> Okay, so the problem remains no matter which solution for wakeup you
> pick in genpd.
Yes. Today I could reproduce this issue
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:59 PM
>
> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Ulf,
> Okay, so the problem remains no matter which solution for wakeup you
> pick in genpd.
Yes. Today I could reproduce this issue without usb host driver.
Hi Ulf,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro
Hi Ulf,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>>> wrote:
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29,
On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
From: Ulf Hansson, Sent:
On 29 November 2017 at 10:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:23 AM
On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro
Hi Ulf,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
>>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:23 AM
>>> On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
Hi Ulf,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
>>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:23 AM
>>> On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>>> wrote:
>>> >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent:
On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:23 AM
>>
>> On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Geert-san,
>> >
>> >> From:
On 29 November 2017 at 09:21, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:23 AM
>>
>> On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Geert-san,
>> >
>> >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
>> >>
Hi,
> From: Alan Stern, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:07 AM
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
>
> > Hi Geert-san,
> >
> > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
> > >
> > > Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM,
Hi,
> From: Alan Stern, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:07 AM
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
>
> > Hi Geert-san,
> >
> > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
> > >
> > > Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM,
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:23 AM
>
> On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
> > Hi Geert-san,
> >
> >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
> >>
> >> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
> >>
Hi,
> From: Ulf Hansson, Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:23 AM
>
> On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> wrote:
> > Hi Geert-san,
> >
> >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
> >>
> >> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27
On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi Geert-san,
>
>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
>>
>> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki
>> wrote:
On 28 November 2017 at 13:48, Yoshihiro Shimoda
wrote:
> Hi Geert-san,
>
>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
>>
>> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki
>> wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > The check for
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> Hi Geert-san,
>
> > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
> >
> > Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki
> > wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> Hi Geert-san,
>
> > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
> >
> > Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki
> > wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > >
> > > The check
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>
>> The check for "active" children in
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>
>> The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
>> trying to set the parent device status to
Hi Geert-san,
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
>
> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > The check for "active" children in
Hi Geert-san,
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:58 PM
>
> Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> > trying to set
Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
>
Hi Rafael, Shimoda-san,
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
> really make sense, because in fact it is not
On Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:22:41 AM CET Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 01:27:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> > trying to set the parent
On Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:22:41 AM CET Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 01:27:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> > trying to set the parent device status to
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 01:27:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
> really make sense, because in fact it
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 01:27:30AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
> really make sense, because in fact it is not invalid to set the
>
[...]
>>
>> When pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev) is called, dev's child device may
>> still be runtime PM enabled and active.
>> I was suggesting to add a check for this scenario, to see if dev's
>> child device is runtime PM is enabled, as and additional constraint
>> before deciding to return an
[...]
>>
>> When pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev) is called, dev's child device may
>> still be runtime PM enabled and active.
>> I was suggesting to add a check for this scenario, to see if dev's
>> child device is runtime PM is enabled, as and additional constraint
>> before deciding to return an
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:56:39 AM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 14 November 2017 at 10:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 13 November 2017 at 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:56:39 AM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 14 November 2017 at 10:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 13 November 2017 at 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki
On 14 November 2017 at 10:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 13 November 2017 at 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On 14 November 2017 at 10:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 13 November 2017 at 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>> >
>>> > The check for
On 13 November 2017 at 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > The check
On 13 November 2017 at 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
>> > trying
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > The
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
>> >
On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> > trying to set the
On Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> > trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
> >
On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
> really make sense, because in
On 12 November 2017 at 01:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The check for "active" children in __pm_runtime_set_status(), when
> trying to set the parent device status to "suspended", doesn't
> really make sense, because in fact it is not invalid to set the
> status of a
58 matches
Mail list logo