From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754895Ab0ERWGi (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2010 18:06:38 -0400 Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.39.38]:51470 "HELO outbound-mail-158.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752654Ab0ERWGg (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2010 18:06:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=qH5I7Aipx2/Ihda1b57W1uDi3U4G+ZQxwfSDXswrwudiGPdac8MgdwDikP5kX4IzaIyzcItkjp2R8RdfnoowU64+q7iF/f5VkKeAThzkFqgeReI2SOVNa1yV7IpBPDDt; Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 15:05:13 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Randy Dunlap , pm list , LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PCI , Matthew Garrett , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , Alan Stern Subject: Re: [update] Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM / PCI: Update PCI power management documentation Message-ID: <20100518150513.050bb794@virtuousgeek.org> In-Reply-To: <201005180023.24885.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <201005162149.31770.rjw@sisk.pl> <4BF0B1C5.4060601@oracle.com> <201005180023.24885.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.110.194.140 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 18 May 2010 00:23:24 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > On Monday 17 May 2010, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 05/16/10 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've just finished rewriting the PCI PM documentation. I hope I didn't forget > > > of anything important, so please let me know if I did. > > > > > > Generally, please let me know what you think. > > > > Hi, > > > > It reads pretty well IMO. > > > > I have corrected several typos etc. > > I have also noted a need for explaining *why* something is being done, > > not just what is being done. > > Thanks a lot for the very useful comments. I did my best to address them all > and the modified (and hopefully improved patch) is appended. > > > There may be a few other places where some justification is needed > > (i.e., would be helpful). > > Well, in fact it is quite difficult to me to identify places where such a > justification would be useful, because I know how all of this works. :-) > Fortunately, the justification is usually given in the other two documents this > one refers to. > Applied, thanks guys. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center