[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E3A6949.2050109@st.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:11:29 +0530
From: viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>
To: "Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc: "linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Armando VISCONTI <armando.visconti@...com>,
Shiraz HASHIM <shiraz.hashim@...com>,
Vipin KUMAR <vipin.kumar@...com>,
Rajeev KUMAR <rajeev-dlh.kumar@...com>,
Deepak SIKRI <deepak.sikri@...com>,
Vipul Kumar SAMAR <vipulkumar.samar@...com>,
Amit VIRDI <Amit.VIRDI@...com>,
Pratyush ANAND <pratyush.anand@...com>,
Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.sharma@...com>,
"viresh.linux@...il.com" <viresh.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 08/20] dmaengine/amba-pl08x: support runtime PM
On 08/04/2011 02:22 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> i dont think pm_runtime_put_sync() is the right thing to do here. This
> will call your suspend and return after suspend has been called. This
> will delay your probe completion and have impact on system boot time,
> this is a very wrong approach.
> Please move this to _put, so that suspend will be called asynchronously
>
> Also while at it why should you require all the _put calls to be _sync
> type?
That was a mistake, and i already fixed this in a reply to Russell's mail
today.
--
viresh
--
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