On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:55 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> It's in my queue (which I will send out when I find some spare time).
Great thanks.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (which is currently an alias for linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org)
Ok. Somebody told me to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] but the MAINTAINERS
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
> When suspend is ever implemented for pmu68k it really should follow the
> generic pm_ops concept and not mirror the platform-specific /dev/pmu
> device with ioctls on it. Hence, this patch removes the unused code there;
> should the implementors need it t
When suspend is ever implemented for pmu68k it really should follow the
generic pm_ops concept and not mirror the platform-specific /dev/pmu
device with ioctls on it. Hence, this patch removes the unused code there;
should the implementors need it they can look at via-pmu.c and/or the
history of th
When suspend is ever implemented for pmu68k it really should follow the
generic pm_ops concept and not mirror the platform-specific /dev/pmu
device with ioctls on it. Hence, this patch removes the unused code there;
should the implementers need it they can look at via-pmu.c and/or the
history of th
