From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269924AbUJGXWy (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:22:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269909AbUJGXGc (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:06:32 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:42403 "EHLO gate.crashing.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269897AbUJGXGH (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:06:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Power parents From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Alan Stern Cc: Kernel development list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1097189945.16223.8.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:59:05 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 04:46, Alan Stern wrote: > Ben: > > Pavel Machek suggested you were a good person to ask this question. > > I see that the power tree agrees pretty much with the device tree, but > there is the possibility of having a different parent pointer. However > the device_pm_set_parent() routine isn't called anywhere in the kernel. > Does that mean it can be eliminated, making the two trees identical? Currently the trees are identical yes. I may still want to "insert" special nodes in the Power tree though... Ben.