On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > Hi, > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Greg KH" <greg@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Josh Triplett" <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@xxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Grant Likely" > > <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > > "Dilan Lee" <dilee@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Mark Brown" <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Manjunath@xxxxxxxxx > > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
