On 1/25/2012 7:13 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
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.
I guess that removing both is the only acceptable solution anyway. That
might force you to change a little bit the #4, but maybe it not even needed.
Regards,
Benoit
--
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
