Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1417343 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-08 14:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-08 19:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Functional dependencies between devices Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 14:20 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Functional dependencies between devices "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 19:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Functional dependencies between devices Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 19:40 +0200
| From | Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 14:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Functional dependencies between devices |
| Message-ID | <rHKCK-8sB-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:52:11AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > What follows is my prototype implementation of this. It took some time > to develop (much more than I was hoping for), but here it goes at last. Might be worth posting this outside the thread with CCs to people working on system integration like SoC maintainers - I'd completely missed this as it was buried and looked like the middle of an old discussion.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rHPsK-367-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1417343 |
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:52:11AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> What follows is my prototype implementation of this. It took some time >> to develop (much more than I was hoping for), but here it goes at last. > > Might be worth posting this outside the thread with CCs to people > working on system integration like SoC maintainers - I'd completely > missed this as it was buried and looked like the middle of an old > discussion. OK I can resend it afresh, but need to do some rework due to some changes that happened in the meantime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rHPCp-39h-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1417718 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 07:24:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:52:11AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> What follows is my prototype implementation of this. It took some time > >> to develop (much more than I was hoping for), but here it goes at last. > > Might be worth posting this outside the thread with CCs to people > > working on system integration like SoC maintainers - I'd completely > > missed this as it was buried and looked like the middle of an old > > discussion. > OK > I can resend it afresh, but need to do some rework due to some changes > that happened in the meantime. Yeah, it looks like the actual patches didn't get much comment but there's the constant grumbling about deferred probe which it'd be good to resolve.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web