From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 8) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:10:46 +1000 Message-ID: <1208124646.6958.61.camel@pasglop> References: <200804040111.15255.rjw@sisk.pl> <200804131533.03150.rjw@sisk.pl> <1208120711.6958.52.camel@pasglop> <200804132339.45280.rjw@sisk.pl> Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:44905 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752392AbYDMWLa (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:11:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200804132339.45280.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Greg KH , pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List , Alan Stern , Len Brown , LKML , Alexey Starikovskiy , David Brownell , Pavel Machek , Oliver Neukum , Nigel Cunningham , Jesse Barnes , Andrew Morton > > I don't see the point... On the contrary, prepare() is the pefect place > > to implement handshaking with userspace for drivers that need to do so, > > such as the DRM. > > This _comment_ reflects the current situation, which is that we freeze tasks > before a suspend. When it's no longer necessary to do that, I'll be happy to > change this comment. For now, however, that's not the case. Can't we run the freezer after prepare() instead ? Ben.