On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:49:39AM +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote: > And even if we did want to support runtime PM interaction for legacy > ops, the code for restore() above suffers from the problem of setting > active even when no callback exists, like I mentioned in the same email > for resume(): I agree it's confused, I posted an updated patch which should behave exactly as the old code did - I think the confusion with the legacy behaviour should be addressed seperately (and ideally in 2.6.37 or at least a stable patch rather than 2.6.38 which is where the current patch is targetted). _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
