From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tom.leiming@gmail.com (Ming Lei) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:29:18 +0800 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: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:37 AM, 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 Inside device_add(), device_pm_add is called before bus_probe_device, so the patch can't change the device order in pm list, and just change the driver probe order. > 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. > thanks, -- Ming Lei