From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 4) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:43:02 +1100 Message-ID: <1206574982.6926.53.camel@pasglop> References: <200803262353.30566.rjw@sisk.pl> <200803270003.51570.rjw@sisk.pl> <47EADBD0.6040400@suse.de> Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47EADBD0.6040400@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Alexey Starikovskiy Cc: LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:27 +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This is the 4th revision of the patch. > > + * struct pm_noirq_ops - device PM callbacks executed with interrupts disabled > > + * > > + * The following callbacks included in 'struct pm_noirq_ops' are executed with > > + * the nonboot CPUs switched off and with interrupts disabled on the only > > + * functional CPU. They also are executed with the PM core list of devices > > + * locked, so they must NOT unregister any devices. > > + * > > + * @suspend_noirq: Complete the operations of ->suspend() by carrying out any > > + * actions required for suspending the device that need interrupts to be > > + * disabled > IMHO, no need to add _noirq in both struct and struct members. > pm_noirq->suspend_noirq does not look good... There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore. BTW. I haven't had a chance to review the rest of the discussion on that thread yet, been busy with other things, I'll try to go back to it today or tomorrow. Cheers, Ben.