From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: manjugk@ti.com (G, Manjunath Kondaiah) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:34:29 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism In-Reply-To: <361419345.198335.1318268242916.JavaMail.root@zimbra-prod-mbox-2.vmware.com> References: <20111008155502.GB616@kroah.com> <361419345.198335.1318268242916.JavaMail.root@zimbra-prod-mbox-2.vmware.com> Message-ID: <20111012070429.GC2080@manju-desktop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > Hi, > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Greg KH" > > To: "Josh Triplett" > > Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" , linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org, "Grant Likely" > > , linux-omap at vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc at vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org, > > "Dilan Lee" , "Mark Brown" , Manjunath at jasper.es > > 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