| Message ID | 1487347836-14427-2-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Friday 17 February 2017 09:40 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > As DaVinci uses the standard suspend_valid_only_mem() for its > platform_suspend_ops.valid() callback, its platform_suspend_ops.enter() > callback will never be called with state equal to PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY. > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Looks good to me. Whats the plan for applying the series. Do you want the individual machine maintainers to apply their parts. Or some other? Thanks, Sekhar
Hi Sekhar, On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> wrote: > On Friday 17 February 2017 09:40 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> As DaVinci uses the standard suspend_valid_only_mem() for its >> platform_suspend_ops.valid() callback, its platform_suspend_ops.enter() >> callback will never be called with state equal to PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY. >> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > Looks good to me. Whats the plan for applying the series. Do you want > the individual machine maintainers to apply their parts. Or some other? I think the individual machine maintainers is the simplest. Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Monday 20 February 2017 02:10 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sekhar, > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> wrote: >> On Friday 17 February 2017 09:40 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> As DaVinci uses the standard suspend_valid_only_mem() for its >>> platform_suspend_ops.valid() callback, its platform_suspend_ops.enter() >>> callback will never be called with state equal to PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> >> >> Looks good to me. Whats the plan for applying the series. Do you want >> the individual machine maintainers to apply their parts. Or some other? > > I think the individual machine maintainers is the simplest. Patch 1/3 applied to branch v4.12/soc of my tree. Thanks, Sekhar
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/pm.c index 0afd201ab980464c..efb80354f3034d85 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/pm.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/pm.c @@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ static int davinci_pm_enter(suspend_state_t state) int ret = 0; switch (state) { - case PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY: case PM_SUSPEND_MEM: davinci_pm_suspend(); break;
As DaVinci uses the standard suspend_valid_only_mem() for its platform_suspend_ops.valid() callback, its platform_suspend_ops.enter() callback will never be called with state equal to PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY. Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> --- arch/arm/mach-davinci/pm.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)