[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrB5uK5U9DH3tc_ZDPhJT4eyhhaZ1+WhjvFprHauKWkSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:06:17 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Linux-SH <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Cao Minh Hiep <cm-hiep@...so.co.jp>,
Dung:人ソ <nv-dung@...so.co.jp>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: rcar_thermal: use pm_runtime_put_sync()
On 12 November 2015 at 19:43, Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:04:09AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >
>> > OK
>> >
>> > If we did that, all devices that had just been unbound from their drivers
>> > and had runtime PM disabled after that would be set to "suspended" by the
>> > core, right?
>>
>> Yes, that's the idea. I will send a patch we can test.
>>
>> >
>> > If that helps, I don't really have objections.
>
> Given this discussion,
>
> Is this series of two patches on this thermal driver still applicable?
I think patch1 is different, it's a cleanup patch (I just replied to
it separately).
As for subject patch, I think we agreed upon that it's a workaround
but I don't have strong opinion if you want to pick it up anyway.
On the other hand the change won't be needed *if* we solve problem via
driver core. I intend to send a patch for this on Monday, keep you on
cc.
Kind regards
Uffe
--
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