Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism

[G, Manjunath Kondaiah]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Greg KH" <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Josh Triplett" <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@xxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Grant Likely"
> > <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > "Dilan Lee" <dilee@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Mark Brown" <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Manjunath@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:55:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
> > 
> 
> I'm a bit of a fly on the wall here, but I'm curious how this impacts suspend/resume.
> device_initialize->device_pm_init are called from device_register, so certainly this
> patch doesn't also ensure that the PM ordering matches probe ordering, which is bound
> to break suspend, right? Was this ever tested with the OMAP target? Shouldn't the
> PM change be also part of this patch set? I don't see why you would want to have this in
> without the PM changes.

suspend/resume handling is already in TODO list:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/135461

-M

> 
> Maybe I have it all wrong though :-).
> 
> A
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/