On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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. The proper fix for this is implement ion of ehci remote wakeup through I/O chain handler; it takes time. As Felipe also mentioned, This patch is OK for now. -- 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
