Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH -mm 4/4] PM: Rework struct platform_suspend_operations

Johannes Berg
2007-06-26T08:49:52Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1180 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 22:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> There is no reason why the .prepare() and .finish() methods in 'struct
> platform_suspend_operations' should take any arguments, since architectures
> don't use these methods' argument in any practically meaningful way (ie. either
> the target system sleep state is conveyed to the platform by .set_target(), or
> there is only one suspend state supported and it is indicated to the PM core by
> .valid(), or .prepare() and .finish() aren't defined at all). There also is
> no reason why .finish() should return any result.

Nice cleanups, I'd wanted to do them when I was doing all that pm_ops
stuff but then didn't get around. Good stuff.

> --- linux-2.6.22-rc5.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pm.c 2007-06-24 20:45:21.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc5/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pm.c 2007-06-24 21:07:41.000000000 +0200

> -int mpc52xx_pm_prepare(suspend_state_t state)
> +static int mpc52xx_pm_prepare(void)
> {
> - if (state != PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -

Hm. I thought I'd told them to leave that out before it went in. Oh
well.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]