On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 09:36:20AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> [160211 07:54]: > > This does sound like there's been a change in the interface compared to > > what users are actually doing - is this an actual problem or is it just > > a divergence from docs? > It's an actual problem at least on omaps as the omap_device code > is very picky about the hardware state. > Depending how the PM runtime is implemented, it may be a problem > for some other cases too. Or people just aren't testing mainline that well (if this is broken in v4.5 that suggests nobody noticed in -next) - do you know when this broke? It really seems like we may need to spin round on how this is deployed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
