[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZddNdqoqEz3BSXGI@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:34:46 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Add post-init-providers binding to improve
suspend/resume stability
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:30:20PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> This patch series adds a "post-init-providers" device tree binding that
> can be used to break dependency cycles in device tree and enforce a more
> determinstic probe/suspend/resume order. This will also improve the
> stability of global async probing and async suspend/resume and allow us
> to enable them more easily. Yet another step away from playing initcall
> chicken with probing and step towards fully async probing and
> suspend/resume.
Do you know what is the state of affairs in ACPI? Is there any (similar)
issue even possible?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists