From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:22:35 +0200 Subject: [RFC 1/2] PM / suspend: Add platform_suspend_target_state() In-Reply-To: <5290346.YItt1Jp12B@aspire.rjw.lan> References: <20170622085102.mpk7vxodpgxtrlfd@piout.net> <1529148.KHlxNOSRLV@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170706031750.GA12954@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> <5290346.YItt1Jp12B@aspire.rjw.lan> Message-ID: <20170716182235.GB14461@amd> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi! > > > So why exactly isn't it reasonable? > > > > > > Please use technical arguments. Saying that something is wrong without > > > explaining the problem you see with it isn't particulatly useful in technical > > > discussions. > > > > Deep in your heart, you should know that having enum listing all the platforms linux > > runs on is a very bad idea. > > Even so, if I'm unable to explain to people why this is a bad idea in technical > terms, that doesn't mean too much. I could say something O(#drivers * #platforms) vs. O(#drivers + #platforms) lines of code -- but I thought it was obvious...? > > Anyway, there are better solutions, regulator framework already knows if given rail > > will be powered off or not, and their driver already knows if they are going > > suspend/standby. They just need to use existing interfaces. > > So they need to know what has been passed to suspend_devices_and_enter() > anyway and currently there's no interface for that. That actually is the source > of the whole issue. Yep, I don't like that, but I guess we should give drivers enough information to ask regulator framework. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: