[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVMoac7psbfO6UdDvNux4c8bQYS4YNUdz1C-o+CiJzyuZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:21:23 +0800
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@...are.com>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Dilan Lee <dilee@...dia.com>,
"G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@...com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Manjunath@...per.es,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux PM List <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
>> Maybe we should understand the correct model of the ordering constraints
>> for the multiple device dependancies first, could you give a description or
>> some examples about it?
>
> The requirement is that devices must be capable of resuming in the
> order given by dpm_list, and they must be capable of suspending in
> the reverse order.
>
> Therefore if device A can't work unless device B is functional, then B
> must come before A in dpm_list.
If all devices can support async suspend and resume correctly, looks like
the device order given by dpm_list is not needed any longer, doesn't it?
thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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