From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Separate suspend and hibernation callbacks (highest level) - updated Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:37:24 -0800 Message-ID: <200803120237.24857.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200803101758.01826.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp116.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.64.89]:30787 "HELO smtp116.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750987AbYCLJha (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:37:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200803101758.01826.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alan Stern , pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List , Alexey Starikovskiy , Len Brown , Pavel Machek On Monday 10 March 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > + * @poweroff: Hibernation-specific, executed after saving a hibernat= ion image. > + *=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Quiesce the device, put it into a low power state a= ppropriate for the > + *=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0upcoming system state (such as PCI_D3hot), and enab= le wakeup events as > + *=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0appropriate. This seems uncomfortably similar to device_driver.shutdown(). The only obvious difference is wakeup event handling, and even that is already a function of the target system state. Are both methods needed? Shouldn't this be more generic, not "hibernation-specific"? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html