From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: RE: PATCH: Call acpi_leave_sleep_state before resuming devices Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:53:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20050116215308.GG2757@elf.ucw.cz> References: <16A54BF5D6E14E4D916CE26C9AD30575F054DA@pdsmsx402.ccr.corp.intel.com> <200501151053.24075.stefandoesinger@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200501151053.24075.stefandoesinger-RbZlAiThDcE@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Stefan =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=F6singer?= Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, "Li, Shaohua" , "Brown, Len" , Carl-Daniel Hailfinger , Johan Vromans List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > ACPI spec also said _PTS (in 'acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep') should be > > called after all devices are suspend (ACPI sepc 3.0 P401), could you > > please also change the order of device suspend and > > 'acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep'? > > Sorry for the delay, but I was quite busy this week. Here is the updated patch > which also causes pm_ops->prepare to be called after device suspend. > Is this correct or should I create another new function? What does the spec > say? Creating another function seems right. Even if ACPI does not need it, some other suspend mechanism will need it. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt