Hi Benoit, On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Cousson, Benoit <b-cousson@xxxxxx> wrote: > Salut Jean, > > > On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Jean Pihet wrote: >> >> From: Nishanth Menon<nm@xxxxxx> >> >> This reverts commit b6be18f0bab68ed304ebbb2d787d1c36237eda62. > > That weird, because you revert a patch you introduced just before: > [PATCH 03/21] OMAP3+: PM: SR: add suspend/resume handlers I left the 2 commits on purpose because I think the descriptions give a good description on why the commits have been introduced and then later removed. > > Moreover this commit id is not relevant since it is probably only in > Nishanth's GIT tree. I removed this in the next version. > > >> Revert the patch so that we remove any opportunity of SR disable/enable >> and any device_scale transitions from conflicting with suspend/resume >> path by moving the sr enable/disable activity to the very last >> stage(in pmxx.C). The previous patch tried to optimize suspend resume >> time, but since device_scale opportunities are from multiple drivers >> (other than cpufreq), hence reverting back to original approach >> >> Conflicts: >> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c >> >> Change-Id: I236b0e8259cfb371899dd0c93875739a21358e33 Removed as well. Sorry about that. > > And this looks like gerrit leftover that should not be there. > > I guess that path #3 and #5 should just be removed. I am ok with both options (keeping or removing the 2 commits), please let me know what you prefer. > > Regards, > Benoit > > Thanks, Jean -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
