Felipe, Keshava, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> writes: > Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> writes: > > [...] > >> Keshava is reverting a fix for a HW errata. I can't accept it as it will >> cause regressions. Granted, regression by regression, there's no change, >> but I simply can't knowingly cause a regression to the driver just to >> have PM working. We need a real fix for this issue. > > Sure, as long as there is a fix in this -rc cycle. > > This driver intoduced changes in v3.5 that break PM for the whole SoC > (by preventing CORE retention.) These changes were clearly not tested > with PM. > > If you cannot fix this during the -rc cycle, then you need to revert the > driver PM changes that broke PM for the *whole* SoC. What's the status of this regression? This is still broken in v3.5-rc and is preventing CORE retention for the *whole* SoC. Please fix this, either with a proper fix, or a revert for 3.5-rc. Kevin -- 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
