From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: f.fainelli@gmail.com (Florian Fainelli) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 19:36:21 -0700 Subject: [RFC 1/2] PM / suspend: Add platform_suspend_target_state() In-Reply-To: <1703157.S2GHVxrQk4@aspire.rjw.lan> References: <20170622085102.mpk7vxodpgxtrlfd@piout.net> <1578637.1XJQpJurXn@aspire.rjw.lan> <53f90d62-111f-57ae-907d-aa347b7033e0@free.fr> <1703157.S2GHVxrQk4@aspire.rjw.lan> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/15/2017 04:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, July 16, 2017 01:34:53 AM Mason wrote: >> On 16/07/2017 01:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, July 15, 2017 10:20:27 AM Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> >>>> The enum offers the advantage of centralizing how many different states >>>> exist for all the platforms we know about in the kernel, it's easy to >>>> define common values for platforms that have the same semantics, just >>>> like it's simple to add new values for platform specific details. >>> >>> Well, you seem to be liking this, so why don't you just implement it? >> >> At the end of his message, Florian wrote: >> >>> In any case, just agree and I will be happy to follow-up with patches. > > But it may be hard to convince everybody without posting code changes > and often enough showing a patch makes a good argument. I had the patches ready last night, saw the emails this morning and decided to go mountain bike for a bit to think about it some more. You will find my follow-up patches that hopefully implement your recommendation. Thanks -- Florian