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 13:52:38 +1100 Message-ID: <1206586358.6926.68.camel@pasglop> References: <200803262353.30566.rjw@sisk.pl> <200803270054.58546.rjw@sisk.pl> <1206576403.6926.62.camel@pasglop> <200803270223.06715.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: <200803270223.06715.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list , Alexey Starikovskiy List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:23 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > > There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore. > > > > > > I obviously disagree with that opinion, so please elaborate. > > > > Well, what does it bring you ? Why can't it be one struct ? To save > > space in the data area ? > > Mostly, but not only that. > > There are users of 'struct pm_ops' that aren't even supposed to define the > _noirq callbacks (device types and device classes), so I thought it would be > better to introduce a separate _noirq struct after all. Make sense... USB has no use of noirq for example. Ben.