[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4222.1279771503@localhost>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:05:03 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
mark gross <markgross@...gnar.org>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: mmotm 2010-07-19 - e1000e vs. pm_qos_update_request issues
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:12:00 +0200, Florian Mickler said:
> Attached patch moves the registering from e1000_up to e1000_open and
> the unregistering from e1000_down to e1000_close.
> It is only compile-tested as I don't have the hardware.
My laptop has the hardware, so I tested it - system does indeed boot
without whinging about this issue. Feel free to stick in a:
Tested-by: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
Thanks for the fast fix. :)
> From 693c71b911ff0845c872261d5704a1d40960722d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:44:21 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] e1000e: register pm_qos request on hardware activation
>
> The pm_qos_add_request call has to register the pm_qos request with the pm_qos
> susbsystem before first use of the pm_qos request via
> pm_qos_update_request.
>
> As pm_qos changed to use plists there is no benefit in registering and
> unregistering the pm_qos request on ifup/ifdown and thus we move the
> registering into e1000_open and the unregistering in e1000_close.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists