On 07/23/2013 02:22 AM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> On 22/07/2013 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
>> Try applying the two mainline commits that I mentioned in my previous
>> mail, on top of 3.10.2 and check if it fixes your problem.
>
> It does fix it.
>
> Running 3.10.2 with your two patches,
On 22/07/2013 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Try applying the two mainline commits that I mentioned in my previous
> mail, on top of 3.10.2 and check if it fixes your problem.
It does fix it.
Running 3.10.2 with your two patches, suspended and resumed a couple of
times without a probl
On 07/22/2013 10:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:52:21PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> And both of them have been CC'ed to -stable. So they should be hitting
>> the stable tree soon.
>>
>> Hmm, that reminds me.. whenever a patch cc'ed to stable hit the mainline,
>> the patch
On 22/07/2013 at 17:34 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Note that I already suggested to Kiko to try that patch (see
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/14/35 ). I don't know whether Kiko tried
> it, as I never received a reply to my suggestion. So, for now, I can
> only say that that patch will probably fix
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Perhaps my message was unclear, too terse, whatever. I wouldn't have
> minded to clarify my message (ie, "apply path x on top of release y).
You are absolutely right, as I said it’s my fault for not following
through it :-)
> Please try what
Kiko,
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 09:24 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> > I saw your message and was going to apply it, but I didn’t fully
> > understand that thread and wasn’t sure exactly what patch I was supposed
> > to try and above what version should I
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:52:21PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> And both of them have been CC'ed to -stable. So they should be hitting
> the stable tree soon.
>
> Hmm, that reminds me.. whenever a patch cc'ed to stable hit the mainline,
> the patch signers used to receive an automatic email fr
On 07/22/2013 09:42 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Kiko,
>
> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/22/2013 09:24 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
>>> I saw your message and was going to apply it, but I didn’t fully
>>> understand that thread and wasn’t sure exactly what patch I was su
On 07/22/2013 08:46 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> linux-3.10.1 introduced a regression in cpufreq breaking suspend/resume
> cycle for some people [1].
>
> There were also some other threads about it in lkml.
>
> I see 3.10.2-stable was released some days ago. I couldn’t see anything
> about fi
On 07/22/2013 09:24 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> On 22/07/2013 at 17:34 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
>
>> Note that I already suggested to Kiko to try that patch (see
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/14/35 ). I don't know whether Kiko tried
>> it, as I never received a reply to my suggestion. So, for now, I
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 17:16 +0200, Kiko Piris wrote:
> linux-3.10.1 introduced a regression in cpufreq breaking suspend/resume
> cycle for some people [1].
The upstream commit that probably will fix the regression that Kiko ran
into is aae760ed21cd690fe8a6db9f3a177ad55d7e12ab ("cpufreq: Revert
com
11 matches
Mail list logo
