[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:37:39 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] PM: Simplify the new suspend/hibernation framework for devices
On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:04:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 of October 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:47:34AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, 6 of October 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I promised at the KS that I would simplify the new suspend/hibernation
> > > > > > > framework for devices to avoid the confusion with two types of PM
> > > > > > > operations and pointers to PM operations from too many places.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The appended patch is intended for this purpose. Unfortunately, I can't
> > > > > > > split it into subsystem-related patches, because compilation would be broken
> > > > > > > between them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The patch applies to linux-next, but it's trivial to make it apply to the
> > > > > > > mainline. It's been compiled on x86 (both 32-bit and 64-bit) and tested
> > > > > > > on hp nx6325, doesn't appear to break anything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This one had a checkpatch.pl problem, sorry for that. Updated patch is
> > > > > > appended.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've added this to my tree (Jesse, is this ok, as it does have a PCI
> > > > > portion?)
> > > > >
> > > > > But it's too late for .28, especially due to the -next tree not up and
> > > > > running right now. I'll let it bake in -mm and -next and it should go
> > > > > into .29.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that ok?
> > > >
> > > > Well, if anyone pushes anything depending on this framework for .27, that will
> > > > become a !@...^&* mess (we've had this problem once already).
> > >
> > > Do we have any drivers that depend on this framework in any tree? Is
> > > anyone needing this now?
> >
> > Well, I thought that the Hannes' work would depend on it quite a bit. :-)
>
> Hannes's work is still in my TO-APPLY mbox, only his cleanup patches are
> in the tree and queued up for .28. Now that your patch is in, his can
> be based off of this, and all of them go into .29.
>
> Sound good?
Yes, fine by me.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists