From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sipsolutions.net (crystal.sipsolutions.net [195.210.38.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55690DDE2B for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 19:02:58 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] MPIC U3/U4 MSI backend From: Johannes Berg To: Michael Ellerman In-Reply-To: <1178614502.18162.34.camel@johannes.berg> References: <20070508025843.0D93ADDEFD@ozlabs.org> <1178614502.18162.34.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7AvOcLRx3l8hCGmeQxNm" Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 11:04:51 +0200 Message-Id: <1178615091.18162.36.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-7AvOcLRx3l8hCGmeQxNm Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 10:55 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > How badly will this clash with my patch that implements suspend/resume > for mpic, and will I need to do more suspend/resume for this? Oh. I see that my patch is in there already. Will we have to implement suspend/resume for the MSI case? johannes --=-7AvOcLRx3l8hCGmeQxNm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGQD0y/ETPhpq3jKURAqbyAJ9p5yRhUmR0VJiAWkzzI97zd0taWQCcCmmJ 7IIZVbSQ148zrRg1WXsPmdo= =+Dey -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7AvOcLRx3l8hCGmeQxNm--