From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [0/5] bcma/brcmsmac suspend/resume cleanups and fixes Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:15:21 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1326440480-26271-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Arend van Spriel , Larry Finger , Alwin Beukers , Roland Vossen , "John W. Linville" , Network Development , "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" To: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Mi=B3ecki?= Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:56706 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752340Ab2AMQPm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:15:42 -0500 Received: by wibhm14 with SMTP id hm14so502840wib.19 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:15:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2012/1/13 Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki : > > I have Asus netbook with BCM4313 since a week, so I'll able to test > this. Just give me a day when I'm back home. > > Could we rearrange order of patches to make > bcma: invalidate the mapped window over suspend/resume > this first one and add stable as CC? What do you think about this? I don't think it is relevant for stable - partly because in stable the bcma suspend/resume isn't wired up anyway, but mostly because if that patch really wants to make it into stable, it really is a different patch than the one I munged it into. The stable bcma doesn't have bcma_bus_suspend() at all, so it goes into that pci-specific one like your original email had it, where it's a complete hack. Does it fix anything in stable? Linus