From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm_ops: add irq enable/disable hooks Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:28:57 +0200 Message-ID: <1175815737.3489.37.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <200704060130.52885.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1487284199==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704060130.52885.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-pm , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============1487284199== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-TDFoNq7pXBsffCGDA78l" --=-TDFoNq7pXBsffCGDA78l Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:30 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well is this possible to do something like >=20 > if (pm_ops->do_something_before_disabling_irqs) > pm_ops->do_something_before_disabling_irqs() > local_irq_save(flags); > if (pm_ops->do_something_after_disabling_irqs) > pm_ops->do_something_after_disabling_irqs() >=20 > and analogously for enabling the IRQs? Ultimately yes, but is it worth the added complexity? Somebody mucking with pm_ops has to know what he's doing anyway. johannes --=-TDFoNq7pXBsffCGDA78l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGFYY5/ETPhpq3jKURAv2DAJ9dPFMUb7xXui2MwWmDNB6hNoOYVQCfR597 vvKsQxnu1o1xKHOJBwFhHF4= =COGJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-TDFoNq7pXBsffCGDA78l-- --===============1487284199== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============1487284199==--