Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:06:01PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Samuel Ortiz <sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hi Felipe, > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:28:52PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:26:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 07:12:19PM +0530, Keshava Munegowda wrote: > >> > > From: Keshava Munegowda <Keshava_mgowda@xxxxxx> > >> > > > >> > > Oops are produced during initialization of ehci and ohci > >> > > drivers. This is because the run time pm apis are used by > >> > > the driver but the corresponding hwmod structures and > >> > > initialization is not merged. > >> > You mean they're currently checked in a different tree ? Is that a > >> > public one? > >> > >> it was supposed to go via linux-omap tree but the patches got lost in > >> the limbo :-( > > Then shouldn't those patches be the ones to be sent to Linus as a fix for 3.0 ? > > If they were ready, maybe. But those patches still need important work > (and review) and are not "fix" material but need to wait until the next > merge window. Fair enough. > Basically, the original patch should not have been submitted to mainline > until the runtime PM support was ready, so the correct short term fix is > to simply revert. > > Also, to echo the question from Dima Zavin: > > Why isn't this just a simple revert of the original patch? I did a revert in my tree. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
