From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Separate suspend and hibernation callbacks (highest level) - updated Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:22:36 +0100 Message-ID: <200803122222.37024.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200803101758.01826.rjw@sisk.pl> <200803120237.24857.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:43991 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752409AbYCLVXY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:23:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200803120237.24857.david-b@pacbell.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: Alan Stern , pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List , Alexey Starikovskiy , Len Brown , Pavel Machek On Wednesday, 12 of March 2008, David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 10 March 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > + * @poweroff: Hibernation-specific, executed after saving a hibern= ation image. > > + *=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Quiesce the device, put it into a low power state= appropriate for the > > + *=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0upcoming system state (such as PCI_D3hot), and en= able wakeup events as > > + *=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0appropriate. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Are both methods needed? >=20 > Shouldn't this be more generic, not "hibernation-specific"? Well, let's not make restrictions at this point. There's nothing wrong= with pointing both at the same function and if everyone turns out to do that= , we'll remove one callback. Thanks, Rafael -- 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