Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:34:29 +0530 | From | "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism |
| |
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > Hi, > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Greg KH" <greg@kroah.com> > > To: "Josh Triplett" <josh@joshtriplett.org> > > Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@ti.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Grant Likely" > > <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > "Dilan Lee" <dilee@nvidia.com>, "Mark Brown" <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>, Manjunath@jasper.es > > 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
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |