[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51DEC024.50603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:54:36 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@...il.com>
CC: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jarzmik, Robert" <robert.jarzmik@...el.com>,
"R, Durgadoss" <durgadoss.r@...el.com>,
Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@...il.com>, tianyu.lan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Fix cpufreq regression after suspend/resume
On 07/11/2013 07:33 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote:
> 2013/7/11 Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
>> I tried to address all these in this patch, but you found yet another serious
>> loop-hole. I guess I'm out of ideas now... if anybody has any thoughts on how
>> to get this right, then I'm all ears. Else, we'll just revert the original
>> commit like Rafael suggested and leave it upto userspace to save and restore
>> the permissions across suspend/resume if it wants ;-(
>>
>
> How about implement scaling driver's suspend/resume callback()? Although this
> needs to be dealt with case by case. If one's callbacks hasn't been implemented,
> it would have to follow current rule.
>
Well, I'm now trying a slightly different approach at reorganizing the code,
and so far I think I'll be able to get it right this time. Let's see how it goes.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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