On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> but maybe it would be about APM being enabled. Which is what the caller
>> actually seems to care about and talks about for the failure case. Maybe
>> you need separate functions for the "is APM enabled" case for the naming
>> to make sense. Hmm?
>
> That sounds like a good idea. What about the following patch?
This patch I have no problems with.
Linus
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
