Re: [PATCH] Re: mmotm 2010-07-19 - e1000e vs. pm_qos_update_request issues

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday, July 22, 2010, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:12:00 +0200, Florian Mickler said:
> 
> > Attached patch moves the registering from e1000_up to e1000_open and
> > the unregistering from e1000_down to e1000_close. 
> > It is only compile-tested as I don't have the hardware.
> 
> My laptop has the hardware, so I tested it - system does indeed boot
> without whinging about this issue.  Feel free to stick in a:
> 
> Tested-by: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@xxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks for the fast fix. :)

I'm going to add the patch to the suspend-2.6 tree.  Any objections?

> > From 693c71b911ff0845c872261d5704a1d40960722d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:44:21 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] e1000e: register pm_qos request on hardware activation
> > 
> > The pm_qos_add_request call has to register the pm_qos request with the pm_qos
> > susbsystem before first use of the pm_qos request via
> > pm_qos_update_request.
> > 
> > As pm_qos changed to use plists there is no benefit in registering and
> > unregistering the pm_qos request on ifup/ifdown and thus we move the
> > registering into e1000_open and the unregistering in e1000_close.

Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/