From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:51:16 +1000 Message-ID: <1176411076.5764.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <1176306867.19348.4.camel@johannes.berg> <461D494D.3080808@gmail.com> <1176367352.5764.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070412101653.GB26473@elf.ucw.cz> <1176377017.5764.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <461E6E07.5020408@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <461E6E07.5020408@gmail.com> 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: Dmitry Krivoschekov Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-pm , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > Actually, I personally two hands up for adding the flexibility, > but you should define what is supposed to do on this level and > what is don't, or not desirable. > = > For example, I'd like to enter back to suspend mode > right from "activate" stage, because I've woken up just > to update some data and I do not want to resume all devices > for that, is it ok for "activate"? That's an interesting approach... might be something we can define via activate result code... Ben.