Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 8)

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@crca.org.au>]

Hi.

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 01:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 14 of April 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi Rafael etc.
> 
> Hi,
>  
> > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:47 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > Well, I'm not sure and I'm not going to introduce the change right now, after
> > > > the paches have been included in -mm.
> > > > 
> > > > That would require quite some changes in the core code that I'd prefer to
> > > > avoid for now.  We can do something like this in a separate patch series after
> > > > the present one settles down a bit.
> > > 
> > > I disagree.
> > > 
> > > Doing it later would introduce yet another major semantic change.
> > > 
> > > I think we should get it right now. There's no hurry in pushing things
> > > especially if they aren't quite right.
> > > 
> > > The ability for prepare() callbacks to sync with userland,
> > > request_firmware, etc... is an important feature that's been needed for
> > > some time imho.
> > > 
> > > Ben.
> > 
> > I agree. These calls have already been changing far too often in
> > mainline. I know it's all been necessary but please, can we try to make
> > one set of changes and just get it right this time?
> 
> Sorry, what exactly has been changing too often?  Device suspend callbacks??
> They haven't changed since pm_message_t was introduced.

I'm thinking of driver models calls for both hibernation and suspend to
ram, both names and semantics as to what is called when.

Regards,

Nigel