Re: [PATCH 05/21] Revert "OMAP3+: PM: SR: add suspend/resume handlers"

[Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Benoit,

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Cousson, Benoit <b-cousson@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Salut Jean,
>
>
> On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
>>
>> From: Nishanth Menon<nm@xxxxxx>
>>
>> This reverts commit b6be18f0bab68ed304ebbb2d787d1c36237eda62.
>
> That weird, because you revert a patch you introduced just before:
> [PATCH 03/21] OMAP3+: PM: SR: add suspend/resume handlers
I left the 2 commits on purpose because I think the descriptions give a good
description on why the commits have been introduced and then later removed.

>
> Moreover this commit id is not relevant since it is probably only in
> Nishanth's GIT tree.
I removed this in the next version.

>
>
>> Revert the patch so that we remove any opportunity of SR disable/enable
>> and any device_scale transitions from conflicting with suspend/resume
>> path by moving the sr enable/disable activity to the very last
>> stage(in pmxx.C). The previous patch tried to optimize suspend resume
>> time, but since device_scale opportunities are from multiple drivers
>> (other than cpufreq), hence reverting back to original approach
>>
>> Conflicts:
>>
>>        arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
>>
>> Change-Id: I236b0e8259cfb371899dd0c93875739a21358e33
Removed as well. Sorry about that.

>
> And this looks like gerrit leftover that should not be there.
>
> I guess that path #3 and #5 should just be removed.
I am ok with both options (keeping or removing the 2 commits), please
let me know what you prefer.

>
> Regards,
> Benoit
>
>

Thanks,
Jean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html