From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: clarify idle vs sleep states
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:24:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5065CF4A.9070406@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1348816688-27531-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
On 09/28/2012 01:18 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>
> This pure documentation fix tries to align the "idle" and
> "sleep" pin states to the idle and suspend states from
> runtime PM.
>
> Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> ---
> ChangeLog v1->v2:
> - I changed my mind slightly after experimentation in practice
> (empirical stuff is the best). So now I think "idle" is for
> runtime_suspend(), and "sleep" is for suspend() proper. This
> works best in practice for us. I'm trying to set some model
> here that will be easy to understand and usable for typical
> cases.
Yes, I think this makes sense.
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
Anmar Oueja <anmar.oueja@linaro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: clarify idle vs sleep states
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:24:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5065CF4A.9070406@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1348816688-27531-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
On 09/28/2012 01:18 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>
> This pure documentation fix tries to align the "idle" and
> "sleep" pin states to the idle and suspend states from
> runtime PM.
>
> Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> ---
> ChangeLog v1->v2:
> - I changed my mind slightly after experimentation in practice
> (empirical stuff is the best). So now I think "idle" is for
> runtime_suspend(), and "sleep" is for suspend() proper. This
> works best in practice for us. I'm trying to set some model
> here that will be easy to understand and usable for typical
> cases.
Yes, I think this makes sense.
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-28 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-28 7:18 [PATCH v2] pinctrl: clarify idle vs sleep states Linus Walleij
2012-09-28 7:18 ` Linus Walleij
2012-09-28 16:24 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2012-09-28 16:24 ` Stephen Warren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5065CF4A.9070406@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.