From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 6) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:28:44 +0200 Message-ID: <200804021728.45823.oliver@neukum.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Nigel Cunningham , pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List , Greg KH , Len Brown , LKML , Alexey Starikovskiy , David Brownell , Pavel Machek , Benjamin Herrenschmidt List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 17:13:11 schrieb Alan Stern: > Basically yes. =A0Subsystems and drivers are allowed to keep devices > suspended if they were suspended before the system went to sleep. =A0 > Remember, the purpose of the resume method is to let drivers know tha= t > the system is now awake, not to force them to put their devices into = a > high-power state. Well, sometimes it is exactly that what we desire, eg. as a side effect of lsusb. Should the callbacks have different semantics depending on the reason you call them? And how should that information be transferre= d? Regards Oliver