On Tuesday 16 August 2011 08:08 PM, Jean Pihet wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Santosh<santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tuesday 16 August 2011 07:13 PM, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>> From: Vishwanath BS<vishwanath.bs@xxxxxx> >>> >>> This patch adds wake up latency numbers for OMAP4. Note that these are >>> preliminary numbers and need to be relooked. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vishwanath BS<vishwanath.bs@xxxxxx> >>> >>> The INACTIVE state is added as unsupported. >>> >> In that case, don't add that support in first place. When INA support is >> getting added, you can update these as well. > No. A value is needed for all states, even if unsupported at the > moment. Omitting a value causes it to be set to '0', which means 'no > latency'. > What I am saying is don't add "PWRDM_FUNC_PWRST_INACTIVE" which is not supported. Then you won't even have that state and no need of latency number for that in the current series. Regards Santosh _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
