Re: [PATCH] i2c: OMAP: fix static suspend vs. runtime suspend

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:

> I understand how this works, but frankly I'm still a bit fuzzy on why.
> 
> I guess I'm still missing a good understanding of what "interfering with a
> system power transition" means, and why a runtime suspend qualifies as
> interfering but not a runtime resume.

These are good questions.  Rafael implemented this design originally; 
my contribution was only to warn him of the potential for problems.  
Therefore he should explain the rationale for the design.

> More specifically, the reason for $SUBJECT patch is precisely because a
> runtime resume is allowed, a runtime suspend is not, and thus a system
> power transititon is prevented.

Alan Stern

_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux