From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Dooks Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: S3C64XX: Add suspend support Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:22:48 +0100 Message-ID: <4CACF6B8.9030304@fluff.org> References: <1fa4a7a39d9fd48b8329e1a1077a65adb96475b5.1286319272.git.mcuelenaere@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from dsl78-143-211-26.in-addr.fast.co.uk ([78.143.211.26]:55624 "EHLO ben-laptop" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757092Ab0JFWW7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:22:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Kyungmin Park Cc: Maurus Cuelenaere , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 06/10/10 00:23, Kyungmin Park wrote: > Hi, > > I agree your approach, put the common features in common place. > but Samsung maintainers insist put these at each machine file at current time. This is just an init call, the actuall implementation is common to the core. We did it this was as it was not clear if _all_ machines under the architecture could do this by default, or would need extra code in their mach implementation, or in a driver elsewhere. I would still prefer each machine that can do pm to call s3c_pm_init() in their setup code to ensure that we don't enable pm on a machine with possibly incomplete support (especially as PM can be one of the more difficult things to debug). From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben-linux@fluff.org (Ben Dooks) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:22:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: S3C64XX: Add suspend support In-Reply-To: References: <1fa4a7a39d9fd48b8329e1a1077a65adb96475b5.1286319272.git.mcuelenaere@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CACF6B8.9030304@fluff.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/10/10 00:23, Kyungmin Park wrote: > Hi, > > I agree your approach, put the common features in common place. > but Samsung maintainers insist put these at each machine file at current time. This is just an init call, the actuall implementation is common to the core. We did it this was as it was not clear if _all_ machines under the architecture could do this by default, or would need extra code in their mach implementation, or in a driver elsewhere. I would still prefer each machine that can do pm to call s3c_pm_init() in their setup code to ensure that we don't enable pm on a machine with possibly incomplete support (especially as PM can be one of the more difficult things to debug).