[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADHgK6sCmPVZ--eyEnqnjfs_4C_PfHTgAUQ_Nb4oJP0mBDnQUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:34:52 -0700
From: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when pm_power_off NULL
Ping..
There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_off
returning; that x86 architecture (and others as well) can have
machine_power_off returning.
Discussions available at the links below:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/25/554 -- linux-arm discussion
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/649 -- linux-pm discussion
Should I continue with the original hibernation patch from the
linux-pm discussion?
Does anyone have any response to Russel's commentsl?
Thanks!
Sebastian
--
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