From: Heiner Kallweit
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:33:36 +0200
> Current implementation of MDIO bus PM ops doesn't actually implement
> bus-specific PM ops but just calls PM ops defined on a device level
> what doesn't seem to be fully in line with the core PM model.
>
> When looking e.g. at __devic
On 04.06.2018 23:48, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 10:33:36PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Current implementation of MDIO bus PM ops doesn't actually implement
>> bus-specific PM ops but just calls PM ops defined on a device level
>> what doesn't seem to be fully in line with the
On 06/04/2018 02:48 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 10:33:36PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Current implementation of MDIO bus PM ops doesn't actually implement
>> bus-specific PM ops but just calls PM ops defined on a device level
>> what doesn't seem to be fully in line with
On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 10:33:36PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> Current implementation of MDIO bus PM ops doesn't actually implement
> bus-specific PM ops but just calls PM ops defined on a device level
> what doesn't seem to be fully in line with the core PM model.
>
> When looking e.g. at __d
From: Heiner Kallweit
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:33:36 +0200
> Current implementation of MDIO bus PM ops doesn't actually implement
> bus-specific PM ops but just calls PM ops defined on a device level
> what doesn't seem to be fully in line with the core PM model.
>
> When looking e.g. at __devic
Current implementation of MDIO bus PM ops doesn't actually implement
bus-specific PM ops but just calls PM ops defined on a device level
what doesn't seem to be fully in line with the core PM model.
When looking e.g. at __device_suspend() the PM core looks for PM ops
of a device in a specific orde
